Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNITED REFORMED CHURCH LION WALK COLCHESTER BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

SMALLPOX

Address for Return,

of the Report of the Investigation into the Cause of the 1978 Birmingham Smallpox Occurrence.—[Sir George Young.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Radice: asked the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has increased since May 1979.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): Between May 1979 and July 1980 the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, increased by 299,900. The figure is provisional.

Mr. Radice: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he includes school leavers, as he ought to, he will find that the number is nearly 600,000, which is the highest total since the 1930s? Nobody knows when it will end. Does the Secretary of State also realise that if he wants to avoid going down in history as the man who led Britain into mass unemployment he must either use his political muscle to get some change in Government policy, or have the grace and honour to resign?

Mr. Prior: On a day of very serious unemployment figures the country will expect more from the House than just a brawl. The figures are bound to cause deep concern, particularly among school leavers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are increasing the school-leaver programme by about 50,000. The loss of many jobs can be avoided only if excessive pay deals are matched by increased productivity, and if we do not price ourselves out of markets, both at home and overseas.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of unemployment is distressing to all hon. Members and that the true answers are likely to be those rehearsed in 1975, and in other years, by the present Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition? Does he agree that we must reduce inflation and ensure that pay increases are in line with increases in productivity?

Mr. Prior: I think that the whole House knows that spending our way out of the recession is an option that no longer exists. Experience of the past 15 years shows that each recession has started with unemployment at a higher level. We start this recession with about 700,000 more unemployed than existed at the beginning of the previous recession.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Does the Secretary of State realise that the figures announced today represent a 2 per cent increase in the North-West, and that much of that increase has occurred among textile workers, who are some of the lowest-paid workers in the country? How does he square a low-paid industry and rising unemployment with the Chancellor's belief that low wages mean more employment, which is what the right hon. Gentleman has just stated? If the country expects more than a brawl this afternoon, what can the right hon. Gentleman offer it?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that one of the great problems with Britain in recent years—including, unfortunately, the textile industry—is that our competitive position has declined. We are 50 per cent. less competitive as a nation in the things that we produce and have to sell than we were three years ago, and 70 per cent. of that is due to the fact that our wages have


increased faster than productivity. There is no escape for anyone in the House or in the country who believes anything else.

Mr. Needham: Does my right hon. Friend accept that among the main reasons for these appalling figures are the lack of competitiveness and productivity in British industry, and that the present situation is just as much, if not more, the responsibility of the previous Administration as it is of the Government?

Mr. Prior: All of us in this House, particularly those of us who have been here for a number of years, must accept our share of the blame for what has happened. I suggest that this afternoon we conduct our affairs in that manner.

Mr. Varley: Is not the tragedy of today's unemployment figures the inevitable outcome of the dogmatic and doctrinaire policies which the Government have been pursuing over the past 14 months? It is no answer to tell the House of Commons that mass unemployment is the crude remedy for keeping wages under control. The Secretary of State professes to be very sorry about the situation, but the bleeding heart which he has displayed today will not provide the jobs for the people whom the Government's policies have thrown out of work.

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the unemployed—[Hon. Members "What has the Secretary of State done?"]—when he pretends that the problem can be put right simply by Government spending and changes in policy. To produce a few extra jobs now at the expense of prolonging our industrial weakness and producing fewer real soundly based jobs in the future is no help to the country or to the unemployed. Nor is it any help to this country for the right hon. Gentleman to throw accusations such as that across the Floor of the House when his record in government, whether he likes it or not, was no better than ours.

Mr. Varley: Does the Secretary of State not accept that it is the responsibility of the Government—any Government, no matter what their ideology—to take some responsibility for the appalling figures that have been announced today? When will he use his minority voice in the Cabinet to ensure that these policies are changed?

Mr. Prior: Of course it is the Government's responsibility, and I am prepared to accept that responsibility. However, I am also prepared to say to the country that I believe that this problem goes back further than 15 months. It probably goes back 15 or 20 years, and Labour Members know that as well as we do.

Unregistered Vacancies

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the proportion of employment vacancies not registered at job centres; and what further proposals he has for reducing the proportion.

Mr. Prior: The latest estimate I have of the proportion of employment vacancies not notified to the public employment service is based on a survey carried out by the Manpower Services Commission in 1977. The survey showed that over the period 7 April to 8 July 1977 about 34 per cent. of all vacancies were notified to the public employment service. The proportion of vacancies notified in areas served by jobcentres was about 42 per cent. compared with 30 per cent. in areas served by employment offices. Any increase in this proportion must depend on voluntary co-operation between local employers, jobcentres and employment offices, and I welcome efforts made by the MSC and hon. Members to encourage this.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that informed reply. Because of the importance of matching people to vacancies, will he personally supervise a continuing campaign to get many more employers to register vacancies—[Hon. Members: "What vacancies?"]—at jobcentres and other employment agencies? Do the statutory undertakers register their vacancies at jobcentres?

Mr. Prior: Every encouragement should be given to employers, and I shall see what else can be done to register any vacancies at jobcentres. My hon. Friend will know that the number of vacancies in the economy at any time is about three times the number that is notified to job-centres. That shows that a good deal more can be done in this direction.

Mr. Mike Thomas: What message would the right hon. Gentleman send to


the 597 platers and about 400 riggers in the Tyneside travel-to-work area, for whom in March there were three and nil registered vacancies respectively? What hope does he hold out for them and the other one in four males in my riverside wards who are currently unemployed?

Mr. Prior: While recognising how serious the position is, particularly in places such as Newcastle, I must tell the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that, in the long run, the only way in which we can help places such as Newcastle, where there is high unemployment, is by getting more real jobs into the economy. That means getting Britain more competitive than it has been in the past 20 years.

Mr. Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this question raises a paradox, because while there is a serious unemployment situation, the reason why many vacancies are not advertised at job-centres is that the skills are not available, and the employers know it? Will he do more to encourage people to be trained for particular tasks for which there are vacancies, especially to enable younger people to gain experience in the skills for which there are jobs?

Mr. Prior: We ought to do everything that we can to make certain that the opportunities that are available in one area are transmitted to other jobcentres so that that information can be conveyed to such people. That we are seeking to do.

Mr. Ioan Evans: As there are now nearly 1,900,000 people unemployed, and as there are likely to be 2 million next month, will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Prime Minister, who went to Wales on Saturday and told people to leave home to find jobs? Where in Britain can they find those jobs?

Mr. Prior: No one is underestimating the problem of finding jobs. This situation has been with us now for a number of years—[Hon. Members: "No".]—and will remain with us for a number of years unless we tackle the basic problem in an old and at present decaying economy. We must do a great deal more if we are to get it right.

Leicester

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is

the latest level of unemployment in the city of Leicester; and by what percentage it has increased since the same date in 1979.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): At 10 July the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the Leicester employment office was 14,084, an increase of 19.4 per cent. since July 1979.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that these are the worst figures since 1932? Is he aware that the Government are destroying the prosperity of cities such as Leicester throughout the country, which depend upon traditional industries such as hosiery, knitwear and footwear? Will he take steps to help all those cities that are suffering from these intolerable levels of unemployment, which demoralise their people, both young and old?

Mr. Lester: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is also aware that these figures reflect the 178 per cent. increase in unemployment in his own city, which took place under the previous Government. If he does not like percentages, it represents 6,801 people. Of course we recognise that cities such as Leicester, which is part of the East Midlands have suffered considerably because of changes in the hosiery and knitwear industries. Schemes in the East Midlands have already cost £ 1.6 million in subsidising 99 projects. The simple fact is that that has not helped the hosiery industry. As my right hon. Friend said, the only thing that will help the hosiery and knitwear industries is if they produce the right products at the right price and market them effectively.

Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the main causes of increasing unemployment in the Leicester area is the big increase in imports from unfairly competitive areas? Will he undertake to meet a deputation from the Leicester area, perhaps in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, so that these points can be put to him carefully, to ensure that the position is fully appreciated?

Mr. Lester: I am prepared to join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade who, I think, is the best person to see, on the question of unfair trading,


dumping and import controls. The Secretary of State has made it clear that we shall act quickly and firmly on proven cases of dumping. We shall also act in cases of mis-labelling and similar types of cheating within the international market. Import controls, however, involve many problems. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the textile, hosiery and knitwear industries export £ 2,000 million worth of goods a year, and they could be affected by import controls.

Birmingham

Mr. Sever: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are registered as unemployed at the Birmingham Soho Road employment office; and what percentage of that figure is constituted by ethnic minorities.

Mr. Jim Lester: At 8 May, the latest date for which unemployment figures for ethnic minority group workers are available, the number of people registered as unemployed in the Handsworth employment office area was 4,729 of which 43.3 per cent were of ethnic minority origin.

Mr. Sever: The Minister will be aware that this figure represents a substantial proportion of the local population on the dole in that area. Will he, with his right hon. and hon. Friends, undertake to introduce immediate policies designed to create jobs and employment opportunities in the centres of our big cities, especially to take in those who are disadvantaged in many respects, other than job opportunities, in the ethnic minorities?

Mr. Lester: Yes. We take this matter seriously. One has to put this figure against the actual number in the ethnic minorities living in the community. The most reliable figure that I can obtain for the Handsworth area is that the ethnic minorities represent about 50 per cent. of the population. One has to judge the figures against that.
The hon. Gentleman asks what can be done in inner cities to ease the problem. We are spending £ 16.1 million this year on the inner city programme for Birmingham of which this is part. Special schemes are being run by ethnic minorities in areas to help meet the problem. The TOPS measure is used considerably by ethnic minorities. In fact, 81 per cent. of those finishing TOPS courses in

March 1980 came from the ethnic minorities. All our measures, including the youth opportunities programme and the STEP programme, are designed for all races. [Hon. Members: "They are being cut."] They are not. The are being expanded in inner city areas.

Mr. Snape: Is the Minister not aware that unemployment among black youths is the greatest social problem facing Handsworth and the adjacent borough of Sandwell? His reply is complacent. to say the least. The National Front is again rearing its ugly head in an attempt to stir up racial problems in the area. The hon. Gentleman should consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see what action the Government can take to solve the problem. At present, the Government appear to be contributing to it.

Mr. Lester: I reject the charge of complacency. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear where we stand on the question of ethnic minorities within the community. The report on Handsworth, in terms of criminal acts and vandalism, was produced in 1977, during the period of the hon. Gentleman's own Government. I did not see any great action following that report.

Mr. John Grant: A month ago, before today's appalling unemployment figures were announced, the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he would be taking new initiatives in this area. What has he been doing for the last month? Sleeping? Where are these new initiatives? What is he doing about the points raised with him by the Commission for Racial Equality on what is probably the most potentially explosive social issue arising over unemployment?

Mr. Lester: The hon. Gentleman should know that instant solutions are not the answer. We met the Commission for Racial Equality and we are considering the paper that it put before us. It is essential that any schemes that are introduced are not racially orientated, but are available for all people.

Industrial Training

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received the review of industrial training arrangements from the Manpower Services Commission.

Mr. Prior: I understand that the Manpower Services Commission has today decided to publish next week the report of the review body on the working of the Employment and Training Act so far as it relates to the arrangements for the promotion of training for employment in industry and commerce.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the standard of industrial training leaves a great deal to be desired? Will he ensure that the proposals in the review are implemented speedily?

Mr. Prior: We need to have consultations on the proposals in the review, which I hope will take place during the summer. I agree with my hon. Friend that training in this country leaves a lot to be desired. This covers young people, the whole apprenticeship system, the retraining of the unemployed and the up-training of people in work. We must ensure that when we get out of this recession we have enough skilled people to enable us to expand.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the industrial training boards have the powers and the funds to carry on the training of apprentices made redundant by firms that close during the recession?

Mr. Prior: Three of the main boards—the engineering industry training board, the road transport industry training board and also, I think, the construction industry training board—have ample funds which they can use to continue the training of apprentices whose apprenticeships are interrupted by redundancy. In addition, the Government are increasing the number of apprentices whom they are helping to 25,000 this year. I shall be giving further details in answer to a later question.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State realise that unemployment in Scotland is twice that in South-East England, and 50 per cent. above that for the United Kingdom as a whole? While retraining is important—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to ask his question.

Mr. Wilson: People in Scotland will draw their conclusions from the ill-mannered observations such as those that

have just been made by the Labour Party, showing its sensitivity and guilt.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that provocative questions help no one. Questions on the issue will be welcomed.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Secretary of State realise that economic solutions are necessary? It is for the Government to come forward with those solutions, including the reflation of the economy of Scotland. Otherwise, the Government and their predecessors will be damned as having no interest in the Scottish people.

Mr. Prior: I recognise the seriousness of the position in Scotland. I recognise too, that we have to put forward economic solutions. That is why it is no good simply pumping more money into the economy to add to the rate of inflation and, two years later, to add to the rate of unemployment. We have been down that course for too long. It simply will not work.

Mr. Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend initiate early discussions with the TUC and the CBI to improve the flexibility of training arrangements, as that might lead to an extension of the number of places available?

Mr. Prior: The TUC and the CBI are, of course, represented on the Manpower Services Commission. I hope that in the autumn there will be an opportunity for a discussion in NEDC on the whole subject of training. Everyone recognises that it is unsatisfactory at the moment More needs to be done, and money needs to be spent in a more cost-effective way. That is what I am determined to see.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people will find it difficult to reconcile his professed concern at the Dispatch Box over the level and quality of training with the savage cuts that he has made in the money available for apprentice awards and the savage cuts in the training opportunities programme, which has been cut back from 99,000 in 1978 to 60,000 next year? Is it not the case that these cuts, like those in the job release scheme, in community industry, and in the special temporary employment programme have all contributed significantly to the disastrous unemployment figures?

Mr. Prior: The cuts were in the proposed expenditure of the last Government, which they were never able to implement. They would never have done so. On the question of TOPS, the main cuts have been in clerical and commercial courses. Courses in computer and technical grades have been increased. The right hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong.

Northern Region

Dr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest unemployment figure for the Northen region.

Mr. Jim Lester: At 10 July the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the Northern region was 157,198.

Dr. Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that that means that for every two people out of work in the Northern region in May 1979 there are now three people out of work? Will the Government refrain from their Pontius Pilate act and start announcing new initiatives? If they cannot do that, will they move over and let someone else do the job?

Mr. Lester: I realise that the figures are bad. As the hon. Member knows, I answered his Adjournment debate on this matter, and I have visited the North-East frequently. Perhaps the hon. Member does not realise that the employment service department placed 92,447 people in jobs. The Northern region gets more regional aid, in both absolute and per capita terms, than either Scotland or Wales.

Sir William Elliott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in the Northern region believe that the greatest hope for increasing employment is for the Government to adhere to their anti-inflationary policies?

Mr. Lester: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. There is no question but that inflation is the real job killer that puts the manufacturing sector in the Northern Region, as well as elsewhere, out of competition in world terms. That is why the jobs have gone from shipbuilding.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that last Friday 3,000 boys and

girls left school in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne? Is he also aware that 14 vacancies are recorded in the careers office? What crumb of comfort can he offer to the other 2,986 boys and girls? How can they increase their productivity?

Mr. Lester: The crumb of comfort is the expansion of the youth opportunities programme. One of the reasons why the numbers of vacancies are falling is that those employers who are taking part in the youth opportunities programme and offering work experience are no longer advertising vacancies.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister tell his colleagues in the Department of Industry that these figures include big increases in rural areas of the North-East, from which development area status has been taken away? Will that removal of development area status be reviewed in the light of the high unemployment figures in areas such as rural Northumberland?

Mr. Lester: The regional changes are designed to concentrate aid in the very areas that the hon. Member has mentioned. Changes have always been subject to review before being finally implemented.

Mr. Lyell: Despite the well-known difficulties in the North-East, is there not a need for competitiveness? Is that not well illustrated by the efforts of British Shipbuilders in getting out and selling abroad and thereby managing to achieve orders equal to the hoped-for base load of 45 ships three months ahead of time?

Mr. Lester: We are talking about the Northern region, not just Newcastle. I could add to the record of the shipbuilders that of Carreras-Rothman, which is building a second factory and expanding in the Northern region, British Nuclear Fuels, Spillers in Cumbria and Findus in Newcastle. In spite of all the difficulties, things are moving.

Pickering and Closed Shops

Mr. Needham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to issue the code of practice on picketing and the closed shop.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr Patrick Mayhew): My


right hon. Friend expects to publish consultative drafts of these codes as soon as the Employment Bill receives the Royal Assent. After consultations he intends to seek Parliament's approval for the codes as soon as it reassembles after the Summer Recess and to issue the approved codes as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Needham: Will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House what process of consultation he intends to undertake, and with what parties, before the introduction of the codes?

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend intends to follow the process of consultation that he followed on the working paper on which the Bill is based. He will consult bodies such as ACAS, the CBI, the TUC and all bodies representing the police. We hope that as many people and organisations as possible will advise us on these codes.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that if a code of practice appears to the work force to be patently biased, and if it is backed by the powers of law and order, that will quickly bring the powers of law and order into disrepute with the ordinary person who is trying to operate successful relationships with management?

Mr. Mayhew: Of course if a code practice appears to be patently biased people will not pay much attention to it. We are determined that the codes will not be biased but will provide greatly needed guidance about the conducting of picket lines. Picket lines with mass pickets are intimidatory.

Mr. John MacKay: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in the Central region of Scotland employees have had two ballots on the closed shop? In the first one, all the employees who were balloted rejected the closed shop. The union leaders and the Socialist council did not like that so they held another ballot, concentrating on the NALGO members only. The second ballot also rejected the closed shop. Will the code of practice stop that kind of gerrymandering, with one ballot after another until the unions get the result that they want? Will that not put even more people in the dole queues because they do not want to join a union?

Mr. Mayhew: I am well aware of the ballots to which my hon. Friend has referred. I am glad that the second attempt, which restricted the ballot to existing members of the trade union only, was rejected by the members of that union. We have, in another place, amended the Employment Bill to prevent that stratagem of taking the ballot only from the members of the trade union. We shall consider very carefully the provisions in the codes of practice.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Why is the Minister worried about the closed shop? If the present rate of unemployment continues all the workshops will be closed anyway.

Mr. Mayhew: The Government worry about the closed shop because they dislike it as a particular illustration of the dangers of infringing personal liberty—[Hon. Members: "What about the right to work?"]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must listen to the reply.

Mr. Mayhew: In that context the Government share the concern of large numbers of trade union members.

Mr. Varley: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that the people who are destroying liberty are himself and his colleagues in the Government, who are destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs?  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This only wastes Question Time.

Mr. Mayhew: I believe that Parliament's proper concern for unemployment and for jobs should extend beyond the unemployed to those who have jobs to go to and only need to be allowed to get to them. [Hon. Members "Out, out."]

School Leavers

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will instruct the Manpower Services Commission to make use of surplus places in training establishments for short courses of instruction for unemployed school leavers where such courses leads to the employment of such young persons; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission—[Interruption.] May I continue, Mr. Speaker?
I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that substantial use—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we must protect our parliamentary traditions.  [Interruption.] In all circumstances we should protect our parliamentary traditions. The Minister should be heard.

Mr. Prior: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that substantial use is already made of surplus places in training establishments for short training courses under the youth opportunities programme. I hope that it will be possible to do more.

Mr. Dempsey: Does the Secretary of State realise that thousands of school leavers in Scotland who have never had a job are applying for short courses of instruction and are being turned down on the ground that the Manpower Services Commission does not have the resources to train them? Is the Secretary of State further aware that the evidence shows that 70 out of each 100 who are trained find jobs? Is it not about time that he ended this outrageous state of affairs by investing in the most important capital of all—human capital?

Mr. Prior: We have increased the youth opportunities programme this year by 50,000 places. If more needs to be done, we shall do more. The increase will involve a large element of training including, for most young people who are unable to get a job and therefore have one of the programmes available, at least one day a week in training in further education colleges or training establishments.

Mr.Madel: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that every effort is made by the Manpower Services Commission to ensure a 100 per cent. take-up of the expanding youth opportunities programme? Will he also ensure that the quality of the programme is improved, particularly in relation to work experience on employer's premises?

Mr. Prior: Yes. The Manpower Services Commission has learnt a great deal in the last two years about how to improve its schemes, their quality, and the length of time that young people are involved in them. It is aware of the need for the second guarantee, which is that

people who are unemployed for a year or more have a chance to take part in a further scheme. We are looking to see whether there are other ways in which we can improve the schemes for young people, and whether we can improve the content of the schemes.

Mr. Woolmer: As nearly 2 million people are unemployed and the CBI has predicted that up to 3 million will be unemployed in the next two or three years, is it not obvious that the only hope for our young people is for the Government to stop blaming other people, face their responsibilities and change their disastrous economic policies, in order to create real jobs that will last?

Mr. Prior: Did the hon. Gentleman read what the CBI said? If he had he would have noted that it said that 2,500,000 could be unemployed if we continued to pay ourselves more than we earn and become less competitive?

Mr. Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend begin discussions with the trade unions to try to persuade them to change their nineteenth century attitude to people who have been trained or retrained in skill-centres, but who they refuse to accept as skilled men?

Mr. Prior: In most cases there is good co-operation with the trade unions in the use of people from skillcentres. In some cases that is not so. Generally, in training, work experience and employment we shall need all the co-operation that we can get, even from the Opposition, in the next year.

Inner London Area

Mr. Dabs: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in the inner London area compared with one year ago.

Mr. Jim Lester: For inner London, taken as the employment office areas in the Inner London Education Authority area, the numbers registered as unemployed at July 1980 and July 1979 were 89,682 and 73,208, respectively. The July 1980 figure is provisional.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that in the South-East as a whole, according to the figures published today, unemployment is 30 per cent. above the figure for


last year and that unemployment among school leavers is 55 per cent. above last year's figure? Does he accept that behind the figures there is the reality of a generation of young people who have been rejected by this society?

Mr. Lester: I do not accept that the reality is that society has rejected these young people. I accept that we must deal with an enormous bulge in the birth rate in the next four to five years. We cannot expand industrial production to match the birth rate. That is why we have expanded the youth opportunities programme and the training programmes.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that, even though the increase in unemployment in London is distressing, young people in London are better placed than many people in the Midlands and the North? Since unemployment is likely to take up a large part of Prime Minister's Question Time, would it not serve the House if the Leader of the Opposition came in at the end of Prime Minister's Questions, rather than at the beginning?

Mr. Lester: I support what my hon. Friend says. In London there are 29,062 vacancies advertised in jobcentres, and that represents only one-third of the vacancies.

Mr. John Grant: Do Ministers realise that they may have succeeded beyond all expectations in creating one nation—one nation that is now undivided by the misery of mass unemployment? Is he aware that that extends to London and the South-East? Is he aware also that in Islington unemployment is 16 per cent. up on last month and that more than 9,000 people are registered as unemployed? When will the Secretary of State stop posing as the "Mr. Clean" of the Cabinet and realise that if he is to cleanse himself he must publicly dissociate himself from the Government's policies and quit the Cabinet?

Mr. Lester: Nobody underestimates the seriousness of the unemployment figures. One would think, from the figures given, that we had forgotten that 22 million people are still in work.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): rose—

Horn. Members: Resign. Disgraceful.

The Prime Minister: rose—

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that we serve ourselves much better if we listen to answers before we start shouting.

The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an audience with Her Majesty the Queen after attending the garden party at Buckingham Palace.

Mr. Baker: Deeply distressing though today's unemployment figures are, are they not due largely to the fact that wage costs are rising at a much faster rate than those of our competitors? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a reduction in unemployment will come only when the level of wage settlements has been substantially reduced and output increased?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the main reasons for today's distressing unemployment figures is that we have paid ourselves far more than other countries—[Hon. Members: "Rubbish."]—for doing the same job. Consequently, we have lost some of the business and they have some of the jobs.

Mr. David Steel: In the light of today's unemployment figures, does the Prime Minister still stick to the view that she proclaimed at the weekend, that her Government are not deliberately creating unemployment? If that is her view, is not the only alternative explanation that she does not understand the consequences of her actions?

The Prime Minister: The Government have made fighting inflation their top priority. [Hon. Members: "At what cost?"] Inflation has peaked at a very much lower level than it did under the


previous Labour Government. It is inevitable that in fighting inflation a short-term increase in unemployment is involved. The alternative is to print money and have a very much bigger increase in unemployment in the long run, which we will not do.

Sir Paul Bryan: Has my right hon. Friend noted that one in four of the resolutions submitted to the Labour Party conference advocates nuclear disarmament? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the Labour Party's most recent document—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is right. The hon. Gentleman must question the Prime Minister on those matters for which she is responsible. I do not think that the right hon. lady claims responsibility for anything that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned so far.

Sir Paul Bryan: Under the circumstances, is my right hon. Friend relying for the success of the Trident missile policy, which goes over 20 or 30 years, on the hope that future Labour leaders will, once they are in office, support the nuclear deterrent, as the Leader of the Opposition did when he was in office?

The Prime Minister: We have made our announcement that we intend to purchase the Trident missile from the United States. That is in redemption of a pledge made at the last election that our independent nuclear deterrent must be kept continuously effective. We believe that that is the best way of defending those values which we all hold dear.

Mr. Golding: Is the Prime Minister aware that not only the appalling rise in unemployment but the increase in short-time working is bringing deep anxiety and insecurity throughout the country? Is she aware also that there is no possiblity of increasing productivity on the shop floor against that background of anxiety for jobs? Consequently, will she restore the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, the job release scheme, the special temporary employment programme and the other special measures to the levels at which they were 15 months ago, when there were much lower levels of unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's basic premise. We have to reduce unit labour costs in this country if we are to reduce unemployment, and the best way is to increase output per person. The only way to do that is on the shop floor by arrangements between management and work people. Unless we do it, we shall not recover competitiveness. It is no earthly good looking for some miracle formula. There is none, except increasing productivity.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I recognise that the latest unemployment figures are very grave, not least for my constituency, which is an engineering city, but will my right hon. Friend impress upon the nation that any real, lasting and fundamental improvement must depend on us, as a trading nation, competing with the best industrial nations in the world?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the problems in the past three years has been the loss of competitiveness of our manufacturing industry. We have become 50 per cent. less competitive than those other industrial countries, and the main factor in that is high increased wages not matched by increased output.

Q2. Mr. Dormand: asked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.

Mr. Dormand: When the Prime Minister visits Buckingham Palace today, will she submit her resignation, before her policies turn the Northern region into an industrial desert? Has the right hon. Lady seen today's figures, which place the region even more firmly at the top of the unemployment league? Before she starts blaming the world recession, may I ask whether she is aware that it is her Government's regional policies that are causing a collapse of business confidence in the region, that it is her Government who have stopped the dispersal of civil servants to the North, and that her Government have not given any encouragement to establish an Inmos manufacturing unit in the region? Will the Prime Minister show not only some compassion but intelligence in dealing with the North?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is "No, Sir". We have put as our top priority fighting inflation. That means short-term unemployment. That unemployment is made worse in so far as people pay themselves more than the value of goods that they produce. Until we stop doing that, and pay ourselves approximately the value of goods that we produce, we shall not cure unemployment and get genuine lasting jobs.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I support my right hon. Friend's overall economic strategy, and an eminent economist has today predicted that inflation in this country will come down to single figures in 1982, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong to allow our industrial base to be undermined and destroyed before her policies come to fruition? Will she, therefore, if the unemployment position continues to deteriorate, consider introducing selective temporary import controls to ensure that we have a lasting industrial base upon which to build?

The Prime Minister: Where there is a case against dumping, we take it up vigorously in Brussels, and we shall continue to do so. In textiles, we operate 400 quotas on exports from other countries. But in general there are many jobs in exports in this country, and if we were to have general import controls, which I realise my hon. Friend is not asking for, we should lose more jobs than we should gain.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Lady take the opportunity today and every day to make clear to the country, as only she can, that the courses that are being commended to her by the official Opposition and by many other voices mean nothing but a deliberate return to hyper-inflation?

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that hon. Members have got over their surprise, they should listen quietly.

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. One cannot create genuine jobs on printed money. That way, one produces only suitcase money and even higher unemployment.

Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the high level of the exchange rate is damaging exports at present, and will she therefore consider using methods which have been used in Switzerland? Will she consider having in this country either a different level of interest rates or an investment surcharge against large-scale financial deposits in this country, which are driving up our exchange rate? She would thereby stimulate more exports and more jobs.

The Prime Minister: I accept what my hon. Friend is saying, that a number of manufacturers are worried about the high exchange rate. I do not believe that it is possible for us to follow the same scheme as the Swiss. Ours is a considerable trading currency, and theirs is not, Here there would be ways round the methods that my right hon. Friend proposes which are not available in Switzerland. I believe that we shall have to use the high exchange rate to become more and more competitive.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you ensure that all hon. Members, however exalted they may think they are, address the Chair, so that other hon. Members may hear?

Q3. Mr Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some time ago.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in the light of the unemployment figures, this day will be called "Black Tuesday" throughout the country? Can she tell the House when the increase in unemployment will cease?

The Prime Minister: I have steadfastly set my face against forecasting either unemployment or inflation reductions, except for the inflation reductions that come from reduced VAT. I do not wish to depart from that practice.

Mr. James Callaghan: In view of the seriousness with which everybody views the situation, does it not appear that the failure of the Government's policies, at any rate over their first 15 months, and the unprecedented rapidity of the growth of unemployment, should lead the Prime


Minister to consider alternative policies? Does she not recognise that a reduction of interest rates, as suggested by her hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), an expansion of the economy and an increase in public expenditure could avoid much of what is happening? Is she aware that if only she could bring herself to co-operate with the trade unions she could get a response that would enable her to achieve the success that the Labour Government achieved in their period of office?

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman is advocating is deficit financing to produce artificial jobs, leading to higher unemployment. That is a course which he rejected when in office, until his final year, and it is a course which I reject, because it would lead to hyper-inflation and hyper-unemployment.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that she has deficit financing now, to the tune of £ 10 billion, and that it should be increased Does it ever occur to her that she is, or possibly could be, wrong about these matters? In the interests of all concerned, I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider her policies. As we have been warned by the Secretary of State for Employment, unemployment will increase even further, and the right hon. Lady should depart from the policy that she has adopted of attempting to control prices simply by closing factories and throwing people out of work.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has rejected every fundamental tenet that he espoused in office about how to tackle inflation and unemployment. He said that we could not spend ourselves out of a recession. I recognise that he is concerned, as I am, about the increase in unemployment over the past 14 months. I must remind him that it is not the largest increase in unemployment between May and July of successive years. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to hear the Prime Minister's reply. The House is entitled to hear her reply.

The Prime Minister: The largest increase in unemployment between the May of one year and the July of the next year came between May 1975 and July

1976, when unemployment rose by 613,000 or 72 per cent. Shortly after that, the right hon. Gentleman went to the Labour Party conference and said:
Quite simply and unequivocally, it is caused by paying ourselves more than the value of what we produce.
That was true then. It is true now.

Mr Callaghan: After all the cheering by Conservative Members, the plain truth is that there are 1.9 million people out of work in this country, and the figure is going higher. The House must have an opportunity to debate the matter. Is it not the case that men and women and young boys and girls are being thrown out of work through no fault of their own? They are being abandoned by the Government as a result of their policies. The Opposition will put down a motion of censure on the Government shortly.

Hon. Members: Resign.

The Prime Minister: I am as concerned as is the right hon. Gentleman, particularly about the increase in the number of young people who are unemployed. That is why we have increased expenditure on the youth opportunities programme from £ 69 million during the right hon. Gentleman's final year of office to £ 183 million this year.

MEMBERS' SALARIES AND PENSIONS (DEBATE)

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about our proceedings last night. I have been asked by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) for an explanation of how the Question came to be put on his amendment to the motion on Members' salaries and pensions. I think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to such an explanation.
After the conclusion of the first four speeches in the debate on the motion it was clear that there was a strong desire on both sides of the House to proceed to decide on the various propositions before the House. It was not a unanimous desire, and on two occasions I refused to accept a motion for the closure. On the third occasion, since the calls for a vote continued strongly, I agreed that the matter should be put to the vote, and the closure was carried by the convincing margin of 257 votes to 33.
Since the Question formally before the House was the main Question, strictly speaking that Question should thereupon have been put to the vote. However, to have done so would have excluded a vote on all the amendments to the motion that I had selected. I therefore felt justified in deeming that the hon. Member for Fife, Central had moved his amendment, being the first due for decision, and I put the Question on that amendment. In that way, it was possible for the House to proceed to decide on all the subsequent amendments in the way originally intended.
The circumstances last night were unprecedented. I took a decision on my own responsibility, as the House expects its Speaker to do. I consider that what I did was justified. It gave the House an opportunity to register its opinion. In a similar situation I would do the same again.

Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that the House is much more concerned about the serious matters that we have just been discussing, but our procedures are also matters of considerable importance.
You said, Mr. Speaker, that in similar circumstances you would make a similar decision, namely, put the closure motion to the House, but may I suggest, with the greatest respect, that you should consider making a fresh statement to the House on that matter? If you propose to do as you suggest it will be an incitement to hon. Members to produce a closure by creating a considerable din—and din can be created in various ways in the House.
I am in favour of protecting the rights of Back Benchers, and some other hon. Members should also wish to protect them. I suggest that the way to protect the rights of Back Benchers and the House as a whole is to stand by our normal procedures on the operation of the closure.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) for what he said. I shall consider his remarks.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of those who did not want the closure to be carried last night, my view is diametrically opposed to that of the Shadow

Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot). The flexibility shown last night was welcomed by most of the House. If similar circumstances arise again I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether it might be possible for the occupant of the Chair to obtain an indication from the deemed mover of the amendment whether he would be willing to move it formally before the closure is put.

Mr, Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for making that statement, although I am dissatisfied with it. In my long years of service in the House it has been unknown to me for any Speaker to deem that an hon. Member has moved something that he has not moved. That denied me my fundamental rights in the House. The prime duty of Mr. Speaker is to protect the interests of Back-Bench Members. That was not seen to be done last night. I wrote to you because I wished to prevent that action from becoming a precedent. Your statement seems to imply that you will create a precedent. You said that you would repeat the process on a similar occasion. That would be regrettable.

Mr. Speaker: I considered last night, and I still consider today, that in view of the circumstances it was my duty to ensure that the House had an opportunity to vote on the issues on which it was anxious to vote. To that extent I did what my predecessors, Speaker Dennison, Speaker Brand, Speaker Gulley and others did when faced with an entirely new position—I reacted in the interests of the House as I believed them to be.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see that five hon. Members wish to raise points of order. I shall take those points and reply to them collectively.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not procedure the instrument of the House and not its master? When it became plain, as it did last night, that the House wished to pursue a certain course—a course that was not oppressive to those moving amendments, because three out


of the five amendments were carried—was it not right to act as you did and set that precedent, which need not be slavishly followed in future but should be an instrument whereby the wishes of the House could be adhered to?

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While understanding that your statement related to what happened last night—we all hope that such a necessity will not recur—I point out that Standing Order No. 30 states that the Question "That the Question be now put" shall be put forthwith unless it appears to the Chair
that such a motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority".
A Question accepted before an amendment that has been selected by the Chair is moved could be an infringement of the rights of the minority. Until the Question is put one does not know the minority view. I ask your assurance that, in all normal circumstances, that will be your interpretation of Standing Order No. 30.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. We must seek to protect the rights of minorities. Those in the House last night—and there was a good attendance—knew that there was an overwhelming feeling, which was reflected in the Lobby. I hope that the circumstances described do not arise again.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a different point of order, based on two points. First, we heard a statement that I would have challenged had I been given the opportunity of questioning the Prime Minister about the statement of the Northern Ireland Member supporting the Government's public expenditure cuts and other

policies, which have created havoc in the economic life of Northern Ireland.
Secondly, we heard the outrageous statement that nearly 85,000 are unemployed in Northern Ireland—the most depressed region of the United Kingdom. Should not the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have been here to answer to the House for that disgraceful position? So many people are unemployed, and many more face the prospect of unemployment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot instruct Ministers to attend the House.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of the House, will you provide a set of statistics about the amounts of grants given to Northern Ireland? The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made it clear that he is against any pump priming of public expenditure. We have never been impressed by his attempts to stop money going to Northern Ireland. I would like that list to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Speaker: I have been tolerant. The hon. Gentleman knows how valid is his point of order.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the two Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 8) Regulations 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc.
That the draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (REFERENDA)

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer a right on a specified proportion of a local government electorate to demand referenda on local government matters.
The purpose of the Bill is to allow district and regional local authority electors in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to put forward propositions that become subject to referenda held at the same time as local elections. I do not have to remind the House that referenda have already been held at national level on such subjects as devolution and our membership of the Common Market. In Northern Ireland a referendum was held about the future state of the Province. The subject of the polls has, quite rightly, been restricted to matters of constitutional importance, but, in addition, parish councils have the right to hold opinion polls on matters of local concern. That right was granted under the Local Government Act 1972.
Local government referenda would be a natural extension of existing provisions. They would give electors at all levels the opportunity to vote in referenda, and would considerably enhance the democratic process. Some people are worried about the cost of the referenda. It would be kept to a minimum by having propositions listed on ballot papers at election times. The referenda would not be held in isolation, but would limit the expense to extra stationery and the additional time spent by officials at the count.
I recognise that that would give an unfair advantage to electors who vote for a percentage of their councillors in each year. That is something with which we shall have to live. There is clearly a risk that the returning officer will be swamped with a large number of propositions, including many that may be thought frivolous. To control that, and to avoid great administrative problems, the Bill requires that propositions shall be petitioned by at least 10 per cent. of the electorate concerned. That means that petitions will have to be signed by between 2,000 and 20,000 electors in district councils, between 10,000 and 20,000 electors in Lon-

don boroughs, and 500,000 electors in the Greater London Council.
Another problem that has to be overcome is the wording of the proposition. Much in the same way as hon. Members need to seek advice from the Table Office on the suitability of questions to Ministers, or the wording of petitions, so we would have the same problem with propositions. It is important to ensure that the propositions are worded in such a way that they apply to local authorities and ask them to do things that they are capable of doing. The wording should be agreed with officers of the local councils, but, perish the thought, it might be that those local councils would fail to agree on the wording of the proposition simply to delay its passage. In these circumstances there would be a right of appeal to local ombudsmen, who would then decide.
I have also given great thought to the question whether the results of these referenda should be binding and compulsory, but I have been very much influenced by the fact that at national level referenda are not binding, and I feel that in practice it would be better if councils were not bound by the decisions of referenda, as they would feel compelled to meet the wishes of the electorate. The Bill, therefore, will not make the results of referenda binding. In the case of this privilege being abused, there is always the opportunity to legislate further at a later time.
Hon. Members may ask why it is necessary and why the existing local electorate system is not adequate. The reality is that in this country there is much more interest in Parliament than there is in local government. Such is the loyalty inspired by the political leadership in this place that people are liable to vote along party lines. Such is the interest held in what happens in this place that people who join in local elections use them to express their approval or disapproval of central Government. Indeed, the turnout in local elections has only once averaged more than 40 per cent. in the last 15 years.
This lack of interest in local government does not extend to other local things. Local newspapers and local radio stations have demonstrated their outstanding success, and the sense of community in this country is undoubtedly


growing. If people feel more involved in the process of making decisions on local issues that affect them they will take their democratic responsibilities more seriously. Referenda will improve communication between local councillors and their electors. If the decision, for instance, to spend millions of pounds on a new town hall in Southwark, one of London's poorest boroughs, had been put to a referendum, it would have provided a great opportunity to debate the subject with the people who would have to foot the bill.
One wonders what the electors of Lambeth feel about Mr. Ted Knight spending their money like one of Queen Victoria's maharajas. They might not like the fact that Lambeth has a similar population to Wandsworth but spends £ 83 million to Wandsworth's £ 51 million, and that Lambeth employs 10,200 people—500 more than a year ago—while Wandsworth employs 7,200, which is 1,000 down over the last two years. On the other hand, Lambeth electors may enjoy paying rates that are 50 per cent. higher than the rates of their neighbours in Wandsworth. They may like to see their town hall well staffed. I do not know, and nobody knows, but

Division No. 420]
AYES
[3.53 pm


Adley, Robert
Freud, Clement
Penhaligon, David


Alexander, Richard
Fry, Peter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Alton, David
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Rhodes James, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Greenway, Harry
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Arnold, Tom
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Banks, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Rost, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Skeet, T.H. H.


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hastings, Stephen
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Biggs-Davison, John
Haynes, Frank
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Heddle, John
Speller, Tony


Bowden, Andrew
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Stainton, Keith


Bright, Graham
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Brotherton, Michael
Kilfedder, James A.
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Temple-Morris, Peter


Butcher, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lee, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Canavan, Dennis
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Cockeram, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Colvin, Michael
Loveridge, John
Wall, Patrick


Costain, Sir Albert
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Ward, John


Dickens, Geoffrey
McQuade, John
Whitney, Raymond


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Winterton, Nicholas


English, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus



Fell, Anthony
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mudd, David
Mr. Bob Dunn and


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Mr. Viscount Cranborne.


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Pawsey, James

NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brinton, Tim


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Bennett. Andrew (Stockport N)
Brown, Robert C (Newcastle W)

nobody ever will know until local government referenda give people the opportunity to make their wishes clear.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Mr. Stan Thorne (Preston, South) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Member risen to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Thorne: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is not my intention to make a lengthy speech. It seems to me that we either accept that we ought to be governed by a Government—local or national—who are elected through the ballot box on a democratic basis, or that there is some way, from time to time, through some sort of political contrivance, by which we can resort to referenda. I happen to believe that the latter method is not desirable and that the former must be upheld. On that basis, I suggest that the House ought to reject the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 124.

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Goodlad, Alastair
Newens, Stanley


Campbell, Ian
Graham, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael


Cartwright, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Neill, Martin


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cocks.Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Palmer, Arthur


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Corrle, John
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Heffer, Eric S.
Radice, Giles


Oyer, Bob
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Richardson, Jo


Dalyell, Tam
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)


Davidson, Arthur
Hudson Davies, Gwllym Ednyfed
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Shearman, Barry


Dempsey, James
Janner, Hon Greville
Short, Mrs Reneé


Dewar, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Donald
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Speed, Keith


Dormand, Jack
Kinnock, Neil
Stevens, Martin


Dubs, Alfred
Litherland, Robert
Stoddart, David


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McCartney, Hugh
Straw, Jack


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Eastham, Ken
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McKelvey, William
Trippier, David


Eggar, Timothy
McNamara, Kevin
Varley, Rt Hon Eric Q.


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McWilliam, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Emery, Peter
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Watkins, David


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Watson, John


Evans, John (Newton)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Weetch, Kan


Ewing, Harry
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Welsh, Michael


Farr, John
Maxton, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian
Woodall, Alec


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miltan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woolmer, Kenneth


Forrester, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Wright, Sheila


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)



Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Molyneaux, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Russell Kerr and


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Mr. Stan Thorne.


Golding, John
Morton, George

Question accordingly negatived.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 7

EXECUTION IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF WARRANTS FOR IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF FINE.

'After section 38 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 there shall be inserted the following section—

" Execution in different parts of United Kingdom of warrants for imprisonment for non-payment of fine.

38A.—(1) Subject to subsection (6) below, a person against whom an extract conviction is issued in Scotland for imprisonment in default of payment of a fine may be arrested—

(a) in England and Wales, by any constable acting within his police area;
(b) in Northern Ireland, by any member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve;

and subsections (4) and (5) of section 159 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 (execution without possession of the warrant and execution on Sunday) shall apply to the execution in Northern Ireland of any such extract conviction as those subsections apply in relation to the execution of a warrant for arrest.

(2) Subject to subsection (6) below, a person against whom there has been issued in England, Wales or Northern Ireland a warrant committing him to prison in default of payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction may be arrested in Scotland, by any constable appointed for a police area, in like manner as if the warrant were an extract conviction for imprisonment issued in Scotland in default of payment of a fine.

(3) A person arrested by virtue of subsection (1) above under an extract conviction or by virtue of subsection (2) above under a warrant of commitment may be detained under it in any prison in the part of the United Kingdom in which he was arrested; and while so detained he shall be treated for all purposes as if he were detained under a warrant of commitment or extract conviction issued in that part of the United Kingdom.

(4) An extract conviction or a warrant for commitment may be executed by virtue of this section whether or not it has been endorsed under section 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act 1881 or under section 27 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851.

(5) In this section 'fine' includes any sum treated by any enactment as a fine for the purposes of its enforcement and sum to be found as caution; 'imprisonment' includes,

in the case of a person who is under the age of 21 years, detention; 'part of the United Kingdom' means England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland; 'prison' means—

(i) in the case of a person who is under the age of 21 years arrested in Scotland, a young offenders institution; and
(ii) in the case of a person under that age arrested in Northern Ireland, a young offenders centre; and

'sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction' has the meaning given by section 150 (3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 or, in Northern Ireland, section 169 (2) of the Magistrates* Courts (Northern Ireland) Act 1964.

(6) This section shall not apply to the arrest of persons under the age of 17 years.".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 132 to 135 and Government amendment No. 171.

Mr. Rifkind: This new clause and the associated amendments seek to make reciprocal provision between Scotland and England and Wales, and between Scotland and Northern Ireland for two purposes which I think will be acceptable to the House.
First, it is proposed that warrants of apprehension and imprisonment in respect of defaulters may be executed in the other jurisdiction without the procedure of backing that would otherwise be required. Secondly, it is proposed that imprisonment following thereon may be served locally in a prison of the jurisdiction in which the defaulter is apprehended. In other words, if a person is fined in Scotland and does not pay that fine and is apprehended in England, at present he is often required to be brought back to Scotland, which obviously involves considerable expense and complexity. It is more sensible that, wherever the offender is found, the penalty should be imposed in that jurisdiction. The new clause and the associated amendments provide for that.
These proposals could have been put before the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, but as they have an indirect effect on other parts of the United Kingdom it is clearly appropriate


that they should be dealt with at this stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House. I hope that these amendments, which are largely technical and non-controversial, will be acceptable to the House as a sensible improvement, in line with the Thomson recommendations on the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

HOMOSEXUAL OFFENCES

'(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a homosexual act in private shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of twenty-one years.

(2) A male person who is suffering from mental deficiency which is of such a nature or degree that he is incapable of living an independent life or of guarding himself against serious exploitation cannot in law give any consent which, by virtue of subsection (1) above, would prevent a homosexual act from being an offence, but a person shall not be convicted on account of the incapacity of such a male person to consent, of an offence consisting of such an act if he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that male person to be suffering from such mental deficiency.

(3) Section 97 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 (prohibition on men on the staff of a hospital, or otherwise having responsibility for mental patients, having sexual intercourse with women patients) shall have effect as if any reference therein to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman included a reference to committing a homosexual act

(4) Subsection (1) above shall not prevent a homosexual act from being an offence under any provision of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957.

(5) In this section, "a homosexual act" means sodomy or an act of gross indecency by one male person with another male person.

(6) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) above, it shall be an offence to commit or to be party to the commission of, or to procure or attempt to procure the commission of a homosexual act—

(a) in public,
(b) without the consent of any party to the act;
(c) with a person under the age of twenty-one years; or
(d) where the act is committed on board a United Kingdom merchant ship wherever it may be, by a male person who is a member of the crew of that ship with another male

person who is a member of the crew of that ship or any other United Kingdom merchant ship.

(7) In this section, "member of the crew" in relation to a ship, includes the master of the ship; "United Kingdom merchant ship" means a ship registered in the United Kingdom habitually used or used at the time of the alleged offence for the purposes of carrying passengers or goods for reward.

(8) It shall be an offence to procure or attempt to procure the commission of a homosexual act between two other male persons.

(9) From the commencement of this section a person who commits or is party to the commission of an offence under subsection (6) of subsection (8) above shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both and on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 289B of the 1975 Act).

(10) It shall be a defence to a charge of committing a homosexual act under subsection (6) (c) above that the person so charged being under the age of 24 years who had not previously been charged with like offence, had reasonable cause to believe that the other person was of or above the age of twenty-one years.

(11) A person who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of another from male prostitution or who solicits or importunes any male person for th purpose of procuring the commission of a homosexual act within the meaning of subsection (5) above shall be liable:

(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or
(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(12) Premises shall be treated for the purposes of sections 13 and 14 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 as a brothel if people resort to it for the purpose of homosexual acts within the meaning of subsection (5) above in circumstances in which resort thereto for heterosexual practices would have led to its being treated as a brothel for the purposes of those sections.

(13) No proceedings for an offence to which this subsection applies shall be commenced after the expiration of twelve months from the date on which that offence was committed. This subsection applies to:

(a) the offences mentioned in subsections (6) and (8) above; and
(b) any offence under subsection (11) above which consists of soliciting or importuning any male person for the purpose of procuring the commission of a homosexual act.'.—[Mr. Cook.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we may take amendment No. 131, in schedule 8, page 101, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 7.'.

Mr. Cook: The effect of the new clause and the associated amendment will be to remove from the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 the section that makes homosexual acts a criminal offence in Scotland. The objective of the clause is to end the absurd situation where what is accepted behaviour in one part of the United Kingdom remains a criminal offence in another part of the United Kingdom. The new clause is based on the Bill that was introduced by Lord Boothby in another place in 1977. In the course of its Committee stage that Bill became the object of a number of amendments that were moved by the then Labour Government and that were intended to tidy up the drafting of the Bill The Bill also received a substantial endorsement from their Lordships on Second Reading.
We can be reasonably confident that the drafting of the new clause is competent, because it received the attention of Government draftsmen at that time. I assure the House that this new clause is already acceptable to their Lordships, and if the House endorses it today we shall not witness a repetition of yesterday's unfortunate scene, when their Lordships rejected an amendment passed by this House and the roof promptly caved in on them.
The terms of the new clause are modest. I believe that if they prove controversial it will be because they do not go far enough, rather than because of what they attempt to do. I refer particularly to one detail of the new clause about which I have some reservations. In the new clause we have adopted the age of 21 as the age of consent. I have doubts whether 21 is an appropriate age of consent in this day and age.
In its report 25 years ago, the Wolfenden committee chose the age of 21 because it was the age of legal majority. Since then, the House, in its wisdom, has adopted the age of 18 as the age of legal majority, and on the same criterion it would seem appropriate to reconsider the age of consent in the new clause on the

same basis. However, I recognise that that would be a controversial move, and therefore I confine the new clause to the age of consent of 21, because I am anxious to present the House with a clause that will receive support.
The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks.
We have tabled the clause because we firmly believe that what happens within the privacy of bedrooms is no concern of ours as Members of Parliament, perhaps mercifully. A minority of men, but a significant minority, is attracted only to other men. It is oppressive and impractical of Parliament to say to that large body of citizens that they must choose between lifelong continence or committing a criminal offence. That choice is unsatisfactory. It obliges many otherwise law-abiding citizens in all parts of the community to choose to commit a criminal offence.
The propositions are not particularly controversial. As far back as 1968 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland went on record demanding the same change in the law. It is instructive to recall why the General Assembly called for the change. It recognised that so long as homosexual acts were a criminal offence homosexual men would inevitably be inhibited from coming forward and seeking the pastoral care of the Church.
I understand that the Minister may seek to rebut the new clause on the ground that since there are no prosecutions under the section that I am seeking to delete, no damage is done. However, the fact that no prosecutions are taking place does not mean that no damage arises from the fact that homosexuality is a criminal offence in Scotland. Hon. Members will be familiar with the recent case of the gardener-handyman who was dismissed by his employer on the specific ground that he was a homosexual. His subsequent appeal to an employment tribunal was dismissed on the ground that the decision of the employer was a reasonable one.
I do not propose to trench on the merits of that case, because it is subject to further appeal and is therefore sub judice, but two general truths emerge. First, no hon. Member could argue that the tribunal was not influenced, perhaps unconsciously, by the knowledge that homosexual acts in Scotland are criminal offences. It has reflected in its judgment the prejudice that is sustained by the present state of the law. Secondly, since that judgment there has been a campaign to end discrimination against homosexuals in employment and other fields. A month ago many hon. Members attended a meeting in this House addressed by the leaders of that campaign. It is illogical and impractical to mount a campaign against discrimination against homosexuals, in employment laws or whatever, so long as it is proscribed in our criminal statutes. We therefore tabled the new clause.
I hope that the clause will not be rebutted on the basis of the curious and dangerous constitutional argument that because the Government have decided by executive action that they will not implement the law there is therefore no urgency to change it. We debated the issue when the consolidated Sexual Offences Bill was before the House in 1976. The present Under-Secretary of State for Scotland made vigorous attacks on that argument. He said:
The basis of my opposition to the clause is that it is totally wrong as a matter of basic constitutional principle that Parliament should be asked to approve a consolidation measure of an activity's continuing to be a criminal offence while at the same time the Lord Advocate informs the House that the Crown has not the slightest intention of treating such activity as a criminal offence … Parliament should not be asked to make a fool of itself or to stand on its head."— [Official Report, 3 November 1976; Vol. 918, c. 1571-2.]
I am against Parliament being asked to stand on its head or any hon. Members being asked to stand on theirs. I therefore hope that if the hon. Gentleman is replying to the debate he will not stand on his head and reverse the arguments that he put forward when the House last debated the matter. I trust that he will not rebut the new clause on the basis of the arguments that he rejected in 1976.

It is ironic that we should debate the new clause on a day when the papers report in a critical vein the arrest by Soviet policemen of Western journalists who were covering a demonstration in favour of human rights for Russian homosexuals. The House is given to developing a strong line in criticising the neglect of human rights in the Soviet Union. Those criticisms are well deserved. However, in this instance the state of our law is no better than that in the Soviet Union. It would be more constructive to put our own house in order first. I therefore hope that the House will seize the opportunity to expunge from the statute book what has long remained an anomaly in Scottish law.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: John Watson. I am sorry, Graham Bright.

Mr. Martin Stevens: I am happy to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, under any name that you care to select.
I support the new clause. It is a relief to be able to discuss such matters without the prurient winks and nudges that accompanied discussions of homosexuality, or even wearing suede shoes, when I was a boy. I hope that this modest little clause can be discussed not on the basis of whether, as individuals, we are pro, anti or indifferent to that sexual manifestation. Like many who have spent their lives in the Metropolis, I do not consider it to be of great interest what my friends do, provided that they do not make a nuisance of themselves. Many hon. Friends feel differently, and view such practices with horror and execration. However, what we are seeking to persuade the House to do should not be influenced by such personal feelings.
It is unacceptable to have one law for the rich and another for the poor; one law for the English and another for the Scottish. We are not debating the fact that one has to change one's sleeping car in Belfast. I accept that the Scottish legal system is different from ours, but this is more an argument about civil rights than about the traditions of a legal system. In any case, the legal system to which Scotland adheres is far


closer to the Code Napoleon than ours. That code accepted homosexual conduct in private between consenting people of all ages much sooner than ours. It is absurd that there has never been any legal inhibition on women behaving as they wish. Before the Sexual Offences Act 1967, people could say that they did not care what women did but that we must stop men from doing the same. At that time I used to say "I do not care what you do. You can make it a crime for women, or not a crime for men, but you cannot indefinitely carry on with this difference in responsibility between the two sexes." Today, 14 years later, when the rights and duties of men and women are even closer than they were then, I should have thought that the argument in favour of the clause was even stronger.
My purpose is twofold. First, I support the hon. Gentleman and assert that this is a non-party matter. Secondly, when we divide on the issue, I hope that hon. Members will not make their decision on the basis of their personal feelings or philsophy of life associated with homosexuality, the suffering and deprivation from which it may be said that some people suffer, or the unfairness involved. There will be other opportunities to discuss the ethics and morality of the subject. I hope that hon. Members will make up their minds simply on the basis that it is not equitable to permit a form of congenital conduct which may be legally permitted in certain clearly defined circumstances in England and yet, whether or not the Solicitor-General for Scotland acts, to make that same conduct a serious and disgraceful crime in Scotland. It is fair and reasonable, whatever our personal feelings, to accept the provisions of the clause.

Mr. David Steel: I attached my name to this all-party clause, although with some reluctance on one point, to which I shall come in a moment. None the less, I hope that the House will pass it.
I remember our debates in the 1964-66 Parliament, when I came into the House, and again in the early stages of the 1966 Parliament, when the present statute for England and Wales was

passed, in which the position of Scotland was thoroughly debated. The atmosphere today has changed completely from the atmosphere then. I remember a conversation with the then sponsor of the Bill in 1965, Mr. Humphry Berkeley, in which I asked him why he proposed to cover only England and Wales. He was open about it. He said that the Bill was discussed on a Friday and that if he included Scotland in it most of the Scottish Members would stay to vote against it. Probably that was wise and sound judgment on his part. However, I am not sure that that is necessarily the case today.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said, for a start, the Church of Scotland, in common with many of the other Churches, certainly the Methodist Church and the Church of England, has since considerably changed its view on the moral issue behind the new clause. However, we should be aware that it was not a fine point of law which led Scotland to be excluded from the 1966 legislation in the first place.
I recall some of the rather ribald debates that we had on the Report stage of the 1965 Bill, when hon. Members moved amendments about sleeping cars and what happened when passengers reached Berwick. There was a great deal of hilarity on the subject. In the last election I came to the view that this was no longer a laughing matter. I came to it very sharply.
One of my constituency boundaries is the border between England and Scotland. In the election, in the unlikely atmosphere of the High Street of one of the towns of my constituency, where this is not normally an everyday topic of conversation, a young man accosted me in the course of a walkabout and said that he and his friend were homosexual and lived partly in my constituency and partly in England. He wanted to know what I was prepared to do about the state of the law in Scotland, as although their conduct was legal in England it was not so in Scotland. I said that I was sympathetic to the case for bringing the law into line.
At the same time, I repeated parrot-fashion the explanation given by successive holders of the office of Secretary of State and the Law Officers in Scotland,


that it was the administrative or executive policy not to prosecute for homosexual offences—which are still offences in Scots law—if they took place between consenting adults in private, and that therefore they had no grounds for anxiety. They gave me a compelling answer, that none the less this remained on the statute book. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central indicated, this may well colour attitudes, for example, of society and employment tribunals, as in the case to which he referred. In addition, Law Officers and, for that matter, Secretaries of State for Scotland, come and go. It is not enough to rest the law, on a matter which affects individuals in this way, on the diktat of any one temporary holder of these offices.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the officer for the time being cannot bind his successors on a matter of policy of this kind and that we might well find that his successors take a different view and prosecute?

Mr. Steel: That is my point.
The two subjects are in no way aligned, except that they both involve moral as well as legal judgments. When I was piloting through the House my Private Member's Bill on abortion, I remember discussing with a Scottish gynaecologist the question whether the law should apply to Scotland. It had been the policy of the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland of the day not to prosecute in Scotland for abortions where they were carried out for medical reasons. The gynaecologist said firmly that we should create a positive statute law in Scotland. In his younger days he recalled a Lord Advocate, who had a particular view on abortion, writing—I cannot remember whether it was a specific letter to the gynaecologist or a circular, but that does not matter—to him, saying "The practice in which you are indulging is against the law and I must warn you to take account of this in your future practice." The next time that he had an abortion before him the gynaecologist telephoned the Crown Office and said "I have a patient waiting to come into the theatre and I wish to know whether I may proceed with the abortion." The reply given by the Crown Office was "That must remain a matter of judgment for you", to which he replied "Precisely". He said that it was

not good enough to leave the law to the individual whim of the Law Officers and that we should be declaratory. That is a good principle regardless of one's individual views on abortion, homosexuality or anything else. It is not satisfactory to leave the law in its present state.
I am sorry that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is not with us this afternoon. He answered a question from an Opposition Member 10 days ago in which he reiterated his policy. If I remember aright, he said that it was the policy of the Scottish Office and the Crown Office that prosecutions would not take place for homosexual conduct between consenting adults in private.
That immediately raises the question "What is an adult in Scots law?" I hope that whoever replies will answer that question. This is where I have my slight query about the new clause. I am not sure that in introducing the age of 21, which is the English law, we are not making the law more restrictive in Scotland. I should like to know how "adult" is defined. Is it defined as in the general law of Scotland, or is it taken as in the English law on this subject? The age of 21 is extremely difficult to defend, especially in Scotland, as we have a different law on marriage. If we are to say, as we do in the law of Scotland, that a man of 16 is considered responsible enough to marry and bring up a family without parental consent, it is even more ludicrous to say that we deem a man of 20 to be not capable of deciding with whom he wishes to go to bed.
There is a further inconsistency in the Government's position. As I understand it, the Scottish Office has just announced a small but welcome grant of public money for the work of a Scottish homosexual rights group. It would seem rather odd if the Government are giving a public grant to a body which is doing counselling work on a subject which remains criminal. That is an inconsistency that should be ironed out.
This is a modest new clause and on balance I support it, but I hope that we shall return to this subject in a more general way in future.

Mr. John Wheeler: I also support the new clause. It is extraordinary that in the last quarter of this century we should be debating this issue


with regard to Scotland. It seems only right and fair that the law which applies in England and Wales should apply also in Scotland. May hon. Members may ask why that should be so. I answer that by saying that this House is frequently concerned with human rights.
We frequently criticise other Governments for the way in which they treat their minorities. Surely it is right that in the United Kingdom the same laws relating to personal conduct should apply to everybody. The time is long overdue when the rights enjoyed by the homosexual minority in England and Wales should also be enjoyed in Scotland.
I need say little in support of what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). He is absolutely right. The new clause is simple and straightforward. It does not seek radically to change the situation. It seeks to apply the law in England and Wales to the kingdom of Scotland. I agree with the hon. Member that we might ask why the age of consent is not brought more into line with the age at which heterosexual behaviour is acceptable but that issue awaits a more general review of the law on sexual offences.
In the meantime, it is merely a matter of fairness and justice that this new clause should be accepted in relation to the law in Scotland.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I may surprise some of my hon. Friends, and indeed some Conservative Members, by saying two things: first, I intend to support the new clause, eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook); secondly, I intend to make a short speech. It will probably be the shortest speech I have made in this place. That is for a good and simple reason. I sought advice and guidance on this matter from the only member of my family who knows anything about the law. He wrote six quarto sheets for me and I am bound to say that I had the greatest difficulty in making anything of them. That was not because of the handwriting. It was because I did not always understand the terms that were used.
I support the new clause because, like the Secretary of State and others, I am a firm believer in law and order. I believe

that if someone does not obey the law he should be brought to trial and punished. I cannot for the life of me understand how a Minister of the Crown can say that he will introduce a law and keep it on the statute book, with all the backing of the law of Scotland, but that no one will be prosecuted under it. If the law is the law, it should not be left to the discretion of the Lord Advocate, or whoever is responsible, to institute prosecutions of this kind.
In this quarter of the twentieth century many of us have moved a great deal further in this matter than I would have moved even 10 years ago. The reason for my present view is that I believe that if this law is to have respect it must be enforced. If it is not respected, it should be taken off the statute book. I believe in law enforcement. If the law is not enforced, it should be taken off the statute book. That is the advice that I strongly urge upon the Secretary of State and his colleagues.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) on this subject. It is objectionable in principle that the enforcement of prosecution for a criminal offence should be dependent upon the decision of a law officer for the time being. The enforcement of prosecutions for criminal offences should not be dependent upon the wishes of any individual. That is a matter for Parliament and no one else.
Following what was said by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), I believe that it is important that we should not allow criminal offences to be determined by individual law officers who hold office for the time being, not least because they cannot bind their successors. It is wrong that an offence is enforceable during the term of office of one law officer and not enforceable during the term of his successor. Those things are objectionable in principle.
Turning to the broader aspect of this measure, I entirely support the new clause. I have contrasted it carefully with the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1967. In all material respects it is the same. The House has, in relation to England and Wales, accepted that it is right that in private homosexual activities


between consenting adults should be lawful. That argument has already been accepted in England and Wales. Therefore, the argument prevails unless someone can bring forward a good reason to show why Scotland and Northern Ireland should be treated differently.
Of course, I appreciate that there are major differences between the legal systems of Scotland and England. However, I believe that on fundamental human rights—this is a human right of a kind—there should be parity. I can see no reason why people should have a lesser right in Scotland than they have in England and Wales. That being so I support the new clause and, if I might add, I hope that we shall introduce a measure that will apply to Northern Ireland in due course.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I may be speaking somewhat out of turn when I say it, but so far nobody has suggested that he is in favour of prosecuting consenting adults who commit homosexual acts in private in Scotland. There is, therefore, no division of opinion about the merits of the new clause. It may be that a different view will be reflected later.
That being the case, there is only the argument which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) suggested the Government will put forward for rejecting the new clause. The Government's argument is that the law is not prosecuted at the moment in Scotland as a matter of executive act, and therefore it is unnecessary to change the law.
That is an untenable position as a continuing expression of the enforcement of law. It is not simply that there might be a change of Lord Advocate and, therefore, a change in principle of the outlook of the Lord Advocate. As I understand the position in Scotland, the Lord Advocate's advice need not be followed by the procurators fiscal, and sometimes they do not follow his advice. Indeed, the fiscals were carrying out this policy before the Lord Advocate first made the suggestion in the instructions that were sent out. It is therefore possible for a fiscal to take a different view even within the guidance laid down by the Lord Advocate.
It is wrong that the law should be administered differently in different parts of the country when we are discussing important personal conduct of this kind. I am talking not about the difference betwen England and Scotland but about different parts of Scotland. I accept the argument put forward by the Scottish National Party that Scotland has a law of its own and is entitled to take a different view about criminal penalties for particular conduct—that is, of course, the legal position—but I am a little reluctant to suggest that when we talk about personal human conduct of this kind, which bridges national boundaries, would be helpful—though I do not say that it would be right—if people who were moving between the two countries on a regular basis did not find themselves in breach of the law on one side of the border and outside the law on the other side. I accept that that might happen in certain circumstances. Obviously, it happens in marriage and divorce. It would be better if it did not. But I accept that the Scots are entitled to take their own view about this matter.
Where I disagree with the Scottish National Party—I am coming on to what may be sensitive ground—is whether even in Scotland there is a consensus for a criminal law against homosexual acts in private. I should think that opinion in Scotland is similar to that in England, which is overwhelmingly against making this kind of conduct a criminal offence.
If that be the case, what is left to the Secretary of State for Scotland? He does not believe in the merits of this argument. He rests upon this quibble whether we need to have a law that is not enforced. If that is the position, why can he not agree with the expressed wish of most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, namely, that the law of Scotland and England in this respect ought to be brought together? If so, perhaps he would say so now and we could pass on to the next new clause.

Mr. Leo Abse: I have a feeling of dé jà vu when I listen to this debate. There is no novelty in it. There is no novelty in the point at issue—namely, whether it is right for the law to be administered at the caprice of a Lord Advocate or according to a defined rule of law.
From the time that the Wolfenden report recommended that we should end the criminality of homosexual offences committed in private to the time after I had attempted two or three times and others, including Humphry Berkeley, had attempted to put this law on the statute book on not a few occasions, the Government of the day came forward with the suggestion and, indeed, the practice of attempting to temper the law by administrative means and to avoid prosecutions except when cases were explicitly defined. The idea that we could shrink from having to deal with a substantive law was followed in England for nearly a decade, until in the end, with the help of 100 of my colleagues in the House, I managed to put the Sexual Offences Act on the statute book.
There is something highly repugnant in continuing to have debates of this kind, because they will continue until the law is changed. They will go on as long as we have a law on the statute book which, at the whim of a Lord Advocate, is not enforced. In those circumstances, people are bound to be provoked into changing the law. Indeed, they will show contempt for the law and insist that if there is a law it must be enforced and that if there is not every man has a right to know his position.
In my judgment, there are far more important views. Anyone who has seen the predicament of the homosexual in Britain generally cannot doubt that many have come to terms with their predeliction but that others, not surprisingly, find that the problem sometimes causes them great difficulties.

Life is not easily lived for anyone. If there is the extra dimension of having to shoulder the predicament of homosexuality in a society which is hostile to it and expresses within its law that those who practise it are pariahs and outside the community, the difficulties grow. Therefore, is it surprising that again and again we see a paranoic element running through some sections of the homosexual community? It is a paranoic mood which means that these people are not as well integrated into the wider society as some would wish. When we passed the Sexual Offences Act 1967, the great hope was that we would bring them into the com-

munity and would leave them alone if they practised their predilection privately and with discretion.

Is not extraordinary that in Moscow this week three photographers—British among others—have been arrested because a protest has been made by an Italian homosexual about the way that the homosexuality law is administered in the Soviet Union? We do not expect the Soviet Union to recognise human rights or to be sensitive to the needs of minorities. But what is the position in Scotland? Is Edinburgh to emulate Moscow? Is the Lord Advocate to become the ayatollah of Scotland? What sentence does it attract in Scotland? I do not know. I know what it attracted in England and Wales. Buggery was punishable with a sentence of life imprisonment until the 1967 Act. Who does the Lord Advocate think he is—the Lord himself?—to hold over the issue of life or death, according to his whim, upon men who have a perfect right to live their lives with their own difficulties provided that they do not impinge in any offensive way on the wider community?

Even this miserable new clause—it is a miserable clause—carries over all the compromises and blemishes which I had to put into the 1967 legislation to get it through. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was right when he cited the reason why Humphry Berkeley's Act did not apply to Scotland. That was why my Act did not apply to Scotland. I had enough trouble on my hands without taking on the Scots. But there is a different mood about, and it has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). Change has come in Scotland, too. The Scots found that the passing of the 1967 Act did not convert England and Wales into a Sodom and Gomorrah. Cardiff is no longer regarded as a possible sin centre for the whole world.

It is nonsense to suggest that Scotland dare not change the law. What are these prissy Lord Advocates so concerned about? Surely Scotland has had enough successive Lord Advocates put forward one excuse or another in proceedings on consolidated Bills, when many of us fought together, that it was not a suitable occasion. What is the matter with them? Do they not have confidence in their own


heterosexuality? Are they frightened that, unless a measure on the statute book says that homosexuality is criminal, suddenly the whole of Scotland will plunge into a new Sodom? Such rubbish is intolerable. I would not be surprised if an hon. Member were astonished that we should be debating this issue in the 1980s. It does no credit, and shows no respect or deference, to the law. It will do no credit to the Lord Advocate if he has to retain such an untenable position.

We have an opportunity to get rid of some of the worst aspects. As the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles said, the measure does not get rid of the problem of the age of consent. When I was responsible for my Bill, no one in England and Wales could sign an enforceable contract if he were under 21. A person who was under 21 could not buy a house. The law was subsequently altered, and it became possible to do so at 18.

In putting forward the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central is being far too accommodating to the prissy prudes who apparently oppose it. I shall support him, but he is being far too accommodating to those who insist that the English and Welsh law should remain the same. He has included the risible clause that I was compelled to insert to deal with merchant shipping. I assume that the House understands the position.

When my Bill was enacted, I was told that if we did not do something to protect the merchant seamen of Britain, and that if we did not ensure that buggery and any such offence in the Royal Navy or the Merchant Navy remained a criminal offence that attracted heinous penalties, the whole British fleet would be ruined. Winston Churchill once made some remarks about buggery and the Navy, but I shall not repeat them. In order to meet the folly of the day, I had to insert a stupid clause. I had to appease shipowners and some members of the National Union of Seamen. A man could go aboard a ship or a cruise boat and have an affair with a passenger. However, he would attract a heavy sentence of imprisonment if he had an affair with a fellow seaman. Having extrapolated the wisdom of my measure, and also its foolishness, my hon. Friend has given this weak little clause to the Lord Advocate.

I hope that Scotland will not make itself the laughing stock of Europe. Since my Bill was enacted the whole of Western Europe has followed it in one way or another. If this situation were to remain it would be an affront to civil rights and an abuse of the Lord Advocate's position. The present law is an insult to thousands of our fellow citizens who commit no fault but who are born or are predisposed to a particular disposition. It is high time that a clause of this character was put on the statute book.

Mr. John MacKay: My view of this general subject can be summed up by the words "What the eye does not see, the heart does not grieve over." I take that view, and it is embodied in the law of Scotland. I also believe that that was the intention of the House when it changed the law in England so that one not only obeyed the law as practised but obeyed it as written. In Scotland, the phrase is obeyed but the law has not been changed.
My eye increasingly sees the present situation and my heart increasingly grieves over it. Many people in Scotland and England share that view. I hope that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will not mind my saying that his speech illustrated the way in which the gay society campaigns to convince us that if we are normal and heterosexual we are queer. Its members try to convince us that they are the normal gay people. Indeed, the very use of the word "gay" is an affront to the meaning of the word, and to ordinary, normal people.
I find that I am out of step in Scotland, and even more so in England. I feel that I am not being fashionable, and that I am decidedly odd if I am heterosexual. I get that feeling a lot. Television increasingly pushes homosexuality down my throat and down the throats of my children. A fortnight ago, on a Saturday afternoon, I walked along one of London's streets with my children. We turned a corner, and saw a band of people advocating gay rights and pushing that point of view. That happened in the streets of our capital city.
As I have said, I believe that what the eye does not see the heart does not grieve over. However, the gay society is increasingly forcing itself on us. The


speech of the hon. Member for Ponty-pool illustrated that. If anything, he destroyed the case made by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). He showed that this is just the beginning. The streets of our cities and television programmes demonstrate that a campaign is beginning to encourage more people to take such a route, and to imply that the other route is wrong.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should like to understand what my hon. Friend is suggesting. Is he suggesting rigorous enforcement of the existing law?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend should listen. If he had listened to the beginning of my speech he would know that I said that I believe that what the eye did not see the heart did not grieve over. That is the situation in Scotland, and I believe that it should remain so. I do not believe that, at a time of a pro-the-gay society campaign, we should change the law in Scotland. The law should be left as it is.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose—

Mr. MacKay: We accept that people are born like that, and that it is wrong to persecute them. Equally, we accept that it is not right that they should campaign to the effect that the rest of us should treat the gay society as a superior form of society. I want my children to watch television and to go down Victoria Street on a Saturday afternoon without having such matters thrust down their throats.
A new clause that contains many lines is not the appropriate way to deal with this subject. If there is to be a change in the law it should be considered line by line in Committee. I shall certainly seek to divide the House on this clause.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I must confess that I had no idea that life in Victoria Street, Oban was as exciting as that. However, we learn something every day from our debates. Although I am on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I thought that his speech was unnecessarily emotive. It has been repaid doubly in kind. I should like to return to duller but more relevant arguments.
I strongly believe that a Member of Parliament should not make personal moral judgments about the conduct of other

people. On occasions, moral judgments must be codified in the criminal law. However, that is only so in extreme and unusual situations, in which there is a total consensus about the essential danger of a line of conduct. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said. He doubted whether there was a consensus in Scotland. He thought that there might be a consensus against the present law. I am not interested in a consensus against the present law. The onus of proof lies the other way. If a law says that certain private acts that do not impinge on or hurt other people are so offensive that they should be made criminal offences, it must be supported by an almost unanimous public consensus. It is clear that that is not the position in Scotland, or in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Whatever my views about homosexuality and homosexual practices, and how attractive or unattractive I may find them, I do not believe that they are a suitable subject to attract the sanctions of the criminal law. If something is to be the object of censure, in terms of the criminal law, it ought, by definition, to attract the sanctions. I accept the arguments of a number of hon. Members that to have a law on the statute book which, as an act of deliberate administrative policy, has not been used for many years—there have been no prosecutions in the last 10 years—seems totally nonsensical and positively damaging to the law itself. To say that whatever the circumstances and however flagrant the nominal abuse the sanctions of the law will never be invoked is wrong. We should put the situation right and bring the law into line with current social practice. It should be taken out of the ambit of the criminal code.

5 pm

The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) said with great eloquence and, no doubt, sincerity that he objected to the gay rights movement—he was the first hon. Member to use the word "gay"—campaigning. No doubt many hon. Members get tired of campaigns of one sort or another. I suggest to the hon. Member gently that one of the reasons why the gay rights movement feels that it has to campaign in areas such as Scotland is that it feels that it is under the threat of the sanction of the criminal law.

If one insists on nominally saying "Although we are not going to move against you, we will keep the sword hanging over your head and keep you under the threat of the criminal law, and what you are doing is so abhorrent that it is illegal", one is encouraging people to adopt a campaigning frame of mind. If I were in that ludicrous legal limbo to which we have consigned the gay community I would be in a strong campaigning mood myself. There is no reason why we should not do the necessary deed and get rid of this criminal offence from the statute book.

I have heard the argument in the corridors and the Lobbies that this Bill is not appropriate for the purpose and that hon. Members should not have popped in the new clause at this late stage of major legislation. I do not sympathise with that view. I welcome the fact that clearly there will be a free vote. I do not know how Ministers individually will vote. I have had some private indications, but I do not know whether there is an unofficial Whip for Ministers. For the House as a whole, there is a free vote. It seems appropriate, rather than waiting for private Members' legislation, with all the difficulties of the ballot and the chance of a Scot, who wants to take up this cause against competing causes, winning a high place, that we should take this opportunity.

As long as we continue this strange position of having a criminal law that is not enforced we set up all sorts of tensions, prejudices and difficulties for those who find themselves in this position. I do not want to talk about blackmail in the direct sense, but there are pressures, and those in the gay community feel themselves driven by those pressures. I hope that the House takes a simple stand and repeals this criminal offence.

I was interested in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). When the Minister replies he will presumably indicate his personal view rather than issuing instructions to his cohorts on the Conservative Benches. He will perhaps say a word about ministerial policy if the new clause were successful. There is an interesting area involving those aged between 18 and 21 who may carry out homosexual practices in private. At the moment, they are exempt from prosecution by executive

and administrative fiat. They will not benefit from the new clause because exemption starts at 21. It might be helpful if the Minister would indicate whether he intends, as I hope he will, should the new clause be passed, to continue the administrative proposals for those who fall into the gap between 18 and 21.

Mr. Michael Ancram: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing against himself. I thought that this was the administrative action which he felt was the reason for putting down the new clause.

Mr. Dewar: I see the force of what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that I am, to a limited extent, having my cake and eating it. Like the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, I should have preferred to specify the age of 18. It would have been neater and more logical in this whole area of Scottish law. We do not have that situation. In all honesty, I have to plead for an exception until such time as we can tidy up the law.
I have spoken in this debate largely because there have been references to the fact that Scots have had a reactionary view in this matter and have not been forward in giving their opinion. I believe that there has been a considerable change in the climate of opinion in Scotland. I hope that it will be reflected in the Lobbies by my Scottish colleagues.

Mr. Ancram: I had not intended to speak, but the House should take cognisance of the way in which the debate has developed. The speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) highlights the principle. The hon. Gentleman, at the beginning of his speech, and a number of other Opposition Members, stated that the reason for wanting to change the law is, that they did not believe that individual rights should be protected by administrative action, as happens at present. Yet, because they realise that the new clause will cause greater damage to human rights among a certain category of people in Scotland, the hon. Member for Garscadden says that he hopes that the Lord Advocate will continue to exercise that adminstrative action. In that last remark the hon. Gentleman admits that protection is afforded to people by the administrative action of the Executive and the


Crown Office. It is precisely that administrative action that is valuable and has been a principle of the law of Scotland for so long.
I hope that the House will not accept English lawyers telling us what should be the law of Scotland. I hope that the House will recognise that Scotland has its own legal system. It has its principles. This is one of the principles upon which we have depended for a long time—

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will accept that I am a Scotsman, though not a lawyer. He will also accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) is both a Scotsman and a lawyer. If he reads speeches that we both made in 1976 he will see that we attacked the procedure and practice that, by executive action, one can set aside a particular law on the ground, echoed by his hon. Friend, who is both a Scotsman and a lawyer, that there is no principle in Scottish law that entitles the Lord Advocate to set aside a whole class of offences by his own decision.

Mr. Ancram: And yet, if I may say so, the hon. Member for Garscadden was asking the Government for an assurance that this would be done for the group aged between 18 and 21. I rest my case on that fact. I, too, will be dividing the House on this issue.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Although I am speaking from the Front Bench I should make clear, at least to people outside if not to hon. Members, that the vote on the new clause is a free vote, certainly on this side of the House, and, I assume, on the Government side. I am speaking for myself. My views, I believe, are shared by a majority of Opposition Members.
It is a pity that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ponty-pool (Mr. Abse) did not extend to Scotland in the first place. I voted for my hon. Friend's Bill. I would have voted for it if it had applied to Scotland. The reasons why it did not apply to Scotland had little to do with the merits of the subject, although I do not take the view that the law of Scotland and the law of England should necessarily be the same in these matters. That is a matter of judgment, but there are a number of

areas in which the law of England and the law of Scotland differ. That has been so in the past and it is still the case. Sometimes the law of Scotland has been more liberal than that of England, and that is not a bad thing. My view is that, on the merits of the case, the original Act should have been extended to Scotland in the first place, and for that reason I shall vote for the new clause.
The clause is drafted to make the law of Scotland the same as that of England. Although the law of England may not be completely satisfactory on this matter, I think that it is sensible that the new clause should be drafted in this way. I do not accept the argument that the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for such a reform, and I certainly do not accept that it is undesirable intrinsically that a matter of this sort should not arise on the Report stage.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I understood that a version of the Bill was introduced by the right hon. Member and his hon. Friends in the last Parliament. If this kind of clause is appropriate to this kind of Bill, why was it not in his Bill?

Mr. Millan: There has never been an appropriate or proper opportunity for the House to debate the position in Scotland, either in a Private Member's Bill or in any other way. There have been attempts to raise this matter on a consolidated Bill, but I do not think that that is an appropriate way to change the law.
However, I do not want to go into those arguments now. We have a clause before us now and we should make a decision about it. Any suggestion from any quarter that this is not an appropriate occasion to make such a decision is simply avoiding the question.

Mr. Henderson: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I am genuinely anxious to establish the facts clearly in my mind because I have a great deal of sympathy with the new clause. The Labour Government took a criminal justice Bill right through Committee stage and a clause of this kind was not introduced then. I want to know why it was not done then and why it should be done now.

Mr. Millan: First, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill in the last Parliament did


not get as far as this one. But that is not the answer. The answer is that on these matters, for good or for ill, successive Governments have taken the view that the initiative should lie with Members and not with Governments.
My purely personal view is that that is not a desirable way to proceed. I believe that Governments should be much more courageous in dealing with these matters—not on the basis of party whipping but on the basis of giving the House an opportunity to reach a decision on important matters. That is a personal view. The fact is that successive Governments have taken the view that these matters should lie within the initiative of Members, and that is precisely what has happened here. I am not complaining that the Government have not put this clause in their Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. I would not expect them to do so. But, equally, I do not accept that this is not an appropriate opportunity for the House to make a decision. Any suggestion that it is not is simply dodging the question.

The position in Scotland is unsatisfactory because the law says one thing, but by administrative means and by using the discretion available to the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate, there are no prosecutions. There are historic reasons for this resting on the law of corroboration, but it goes beyond that. As a matter of public policy, successive Lords Advocate have not prosecuted this offence—as it still is in Scotland—for a number of years. I consider that to be highly unsatisfactory.

I am all in favour of the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate having a certain amount of discretion in prosecution policy; that is perfectly sensible and reasonable. But to say that, regardless of the circumstances, there is an offence still on the statute book that will not be prosecuted goes well beyond any legitimate discretion of any Lord Advocate. That is highly unsatisfactory and the matter should be regularised. The way to do that is to vote for the new clause, and I hope very much that that is what the House will do tonight.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) that this is a

matter that normally has been dealt with on the grounds of conscience and conviction, and that the Government should not lay down any views. Therefore, speaking for the Government, I do not propose to express a view either way on the merits of the clause itself. This is a matter that should be the subject of a free vote and I make it clear that on the Government side of the House my right hon. and hon. Friends will be entirely free to vote as they wish.
Perhaps I should spell out a little of the factual background, as a number of questions have been raised and it is best to get it on the record. The Sexual Offences Act 1967, which was piloted through the House by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), did not extend to Scotland. The reasons for that are not altogether clear, but suffice it to say that it did not. In mentioning this fact during the progress of that Bill the hon. Member said that there was rather less need for change in Scotland at that time than there was in England and Wales, because of the practice of successive Lords Advocate. He also mentioned the possibility of Scottish public opinion being somewhat different from English public opinion. That was a legitimate point. It has been suggested today that public opinion has changed in the interval, but I would not express a view on that.

Mr. Abse: There was a third reason—the evidential requirements in Scotland were very different from those of England. The fact that one needed corroboration in Scotland meant that there were far fewer prosecutions. Most convictions in England and Wales came as a result of confessions. There were other reasons why I was persuaded that it was politic not to proceed, but they were all very bad reasons.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Member is very candid, and that is a valid point.
The other point is that I do not adduce as an argument that it is necessary for the law of Scotland and the law of England to be identical at all times. I do not say that there is not some advantage in having similar laws—of course there is. But it is not part of my argument that the law of Scotland and England must always be the same, or that we must move to make it the same.
This clause is perhaps not the ideal form in which the reform could be made. It is merely a carbon copy of an English Act passed some time ago, when attitudes were, perhaps, a little different. However, I accept that the promoters have done this for a perfectly good purpose—that of getting this matter discussed on the basis of a measure that has already been passed for England and Wales. I make no criticism of the clause but merely record that it is not perfect, and probably not the measure that we would enact if we had a chance to do so properly.

Mr. Cook: In my opening speech I referred to the fact that the new clause was indeed modelled on part of a previous Bill. But it was modelled on a previous Bill of Lord Boothby which was introduced in another place in 1977, and to which a number of amendments were moved by a previous Scottish Secretary following consultations with the draftsmen. Those amendments were intended to ensure that the Bill was in line with Scottish law. If the Secretary of State has any particular criticism and thinks that the new clause is defective I should like to hear of it. So far as I am aware we are proposing a competent measure which has received the attention of the parliamentary draftsmen in the past.

Mr. Younger: I did not say and I do not say that it is defective. I do not believe that it is defective. I believe that it is not ideal. Certainly, the hon. Member for Pontypool thinks that it is not ideal.
I do not rest my case on the argument that successive Lords Advocate have declared that their intention is not to prosecute consenting adults who indulge in homosexual practices in private, and have carried out that intention. Some argue that it is not necessary to change the law because in practice such activity is not prosecuted as a criminal offence. I do not adduce that as an argument for not making a change tonight. The House should not weigh that argument too heavily.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is the decision of the Lord Advocate binding upon individual procurators fiscal?

Mr. Younger: I was just coming to that. The position in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales. In Scotland the Lord Advocate is the authority for prosecuting. He issues instructions to procurators fiscal. Such instructions are not known to have been disobeyed. Where the Lord Advocate wishes, he exercises without question the right to prosecute in person instead of the procurator fiscal. That emphasises his role as the source of prosecution in the Scottish system.
Several right hon. and hon. Members referred to the definition of "adult". The new clause repeats the English definition of adulthood which, in this connection, is 21 years of age. I confirm that that is the practice which is followed by the Lord Advocate. If he were considering a case of this type and one of the persons involved was under 21 he would treat the case as if it involved somebody who was not an adult. Adulthood is achieved at 21 in the English statute and it is the age which is used in practice in Scotland. Any case which occurs in the interim period between any decision which might be taken tonight and the Bill becoming an Act would be dealt with as it is now.

Mr. David Steel: I am grateful for that explanation, because it is the first time that the House has heard it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it means that the doctrine pursued by the Law Officers is not a Scots law doctrine but simply puts into administrative practice English statute law?

Mr. Younger: The definition of adulthood is difficult and complex. Different ages are used for different purposes.
My purpose is not to express a view on the principle. I have a personal and private view and I shall exercise it as I think fit. However, I must put one further view on behalf of the Government. I hope that hon. Members will bear it in mind before they vote. I refer to a matter which has not been properly aired. Hon. Members must ask "Is this the way to pass important Scottlish legislation?" Whichever way they lean, hon. Members should bear that question in mind. They should ask whether on any other issue they would be prepared to pass something so important with as little discussion as this measure will receive,


That is a serious point, which must be considered. I put it no stronger. I am not making any criticism of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook).

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Younger: I am sorry, but I must develop the argument. The hon. Gentleman may then see where it leads. He can then ask me questions. The hon. Gentleman should do me the courtesy of listening to the trend of my argument first.
The new clause is of considerable importance. Most hon. Members who have spoken have taken a strong view on the main issue. Most hon. Members have expressed a strong preference for the new clause as it affects homosexuals. I understand that and make no comment. However, the subject causes strong feelings and opinions. People feel strongly about it. They are either strongly in favour of it or strongly against it. It is a strange fact that this evening there have been almost no representations against the new clause.
We often pass measures about which people feel strongly. When we do that the measure goes through an elaborate series of parliamentary occasions when the issues can be aired. Plenty of time is given for representations to be made by bodies that are involved and others who feel strongly.

Mr. George Robertson: What does the Secretary of State think?

Mr. Younger: This matter is worthy of genuine consideration. I say to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who keeps interrupting, that I have not expressed my view on the main issue. Hon. Members should not assume anything either way. I am trying to put a parliamentary point of great importance.

Mr. Norman Buchan: It would be more honest if the Secretary of State gave his view.

Mr. Younger: That is an unfair remark. Some day perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can have a talk and I shall tell him my view. I am entitled to be heard on an important parliamentary point and I shall be heard.
When passing important legislation which affects many people Parliament must convince the people involved that it has given the public sufficient chance to make their views known. It is no criticism of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central to say that the public have not had that chance. They have not had the chance because the new clause was tabled on Report after the measure had been through another place.

Mr. Cook: That is not my fault.

Mr. Younger: It is not the hon. Gentleman's fault and I have made that clear. I hope that he will regard what I am saying as a genuine argument which is not connected with the main issue in his new clause. If the House agrees to the new clause there will be only one other opportunity for discussion before it becomes law. That will be in the House of Lords.

Mr. Buchan: It will come back here.

Mr. Younger: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it will not. It will go to another place, where it cannot be amended, and will either be passed or rejected. All I am saying—and I have not expressed my personal view—is that we shall be passing a measure about which many people in Scotland feel strongly. They will be able to say afterwards "That was passed without our being given a chance to express our views about it or to make representations about it."
Therefore, all I am saying is that the House, mindful of its reputation, of its duty to represent people in the country, should think hard and long before it passes something so important without giving adequate time or opportunity for those whom we represent to make their views known.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State is postulating the case as though at no time in the past year, two years, three years or four years had there been any discussion about the position of the law in Scotland in relation to homo-sexualily. He is really saying that the House should not exercise its democratic right on an issue on which there has been great discussion, but that the Lord Advocate, with no public discussion, with no authority, without any debate, is right


to take that view. Either the right hon. Gentleman is wrong or we are wrong. He cannot postulate the view that it is wrong to discuss such an issue, which has been part of public debate for many a long year.

Mr. Younger: All that I am asking the House to do is to take this matter into consideration. The question was last discussed in Parliament in 1977, when Lord Boothby introduced the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill in the Lords. It was discussed then and was substantially amended in Committee. That was about three and half years ago.
That may be satisfactory. Hon. Members may think that to have such a discussion in another place three and a half years ago is adequate discussion for a measure to go through. My experienece of the Scottish Grand Committee over more than 15 years is not that it takes the view that because something was discussed in extenso, even last year, it can be passed on the nod this year. That is not a characteristic of the Committee, but it may be that there are new forces at work and that it will be the case from now on.

Mr. Buchan: While saying that he is not prepared to give his own views, the right hon. Gentleman is giving a fairly clear direction to some of his hon. Friends that they should reject the clause on the technical ground that it has not been fully discussed. To introduce it in Committee, which was the only opportunity, would not have been particularly proper; we should have been told that there was a completely new principle, involving free votes and everything else, being introduced in Committee. The clause has been introduced on the Floor of the House, on Report. It can be debated for as long as hon. Members wish. The fact that hon. Members on one side have not come in is their responsibility. The clause has had a full discussion and could have had a fuller discussion if hon. Members had wished. There has been no deprivation of opportunity.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, the clause has been the subject of discussion—and strong discussion—in a Scottish context for a long time.
Thirdly, there will be an opportunity for the other place to make its comments on the clause, to pass it or reject it. These are full parliamentary opportunities, certainly opportunities much more open than the kind of things that can happen frequently with a Private Member's Bill or a Ten-Minute Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is badly misdirecting the House in his position as Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman weakens what he wishes to say by overstating it. All that I am trying to do—

Mr. Buchan: Is to misdirect.

Mr. Younger: —is to ask hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, to bear in mind what I have said before they vote. I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to know that he will do his best to vote according to his conscience, and he will no doubt bear this point in mind. That is all that I am asking him to do. I believe that it is a genuine parliamentary point that we should all consider carefully.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I wish to intervene on the question of discussion. I think that the present Lord Advocate is the fourth Lord Advocate who has stated that there will be no public prosecution. He may be more than the fourth, but certainly within my recollection he is the fourth. One must assume that the Lord Advocate took that view as a result of some discussion, some debate, or on a point of principle. If it is good enough for him to take that point of view on the question of discussion, and it is not a mere personal whim—I do not believe that it is—that has meant successive Lords Advocate taking this view. If he has taken it as a result of informed discussion and debate, taking into account not just circumstances of the law and circumstances within St. Andrew's House, but public opinion and debate in Scotland, it is a bit much for the Secretary of State to argue that there is a serious point about lack of discussion within the House or elsewhere.

Mr. Younger: I shall not go deeply into that question. The hon. Gentleman is making a totally different point. What the Lord Advocate does or does not do has no relevance to my argument. All


that I have been saying is that we are passing legislation which many people in Scotland will feel very strongly about, one way or the other, with far too little discussion and debate.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am trying to make up my mind on the issue. He surely cannot argue that insufficient time has been given to the people of Scotland and elsewhere to discuss the issue, so that Parliament may take lack of discussion into consideration when evaluating what the law should be, and at the same time argue that the Lord Advocate is correct, in the absence of the same discussion, to pronounce on what the law will be in actuality.

Mr. Younger: That is a complete distortion. The Lord Advocate is carrying out his statutory function of prosecuting or not prosecuting. Incidentally, the right hon. Member for Craigton, who made some trenchant criticisms, including by implication criticisms of his own colleague, the then Lord Advocate, was for a number of years in a position in which he could have put all of that right if he had wanted to.
I reiterate that the Government take no view either way. It is a matter of moral issue that should be decided by the House on an entirely free vote. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be deciding it individually, according to our own consciences, and shall be glad to work with whateyer decision the House takes.
I hope that the House will bear in mind the points that I have made in advising it on how it should address itself to making this vote.

Mr. James Dempsey: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's point about consultation. Have any Scottish bodies passed opinions on the subject to the right hon. Gentleman? For example, have the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, our social works departments, our Churches and our social organisations expressed any opinions? If the Secretary of State can guide me in this respect, I shall be grateful.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The

position is that—I stress that this is no one's fault—the new clause was tabled only a few days ago, and no one living in Scotland has had an opportunity, because of lack of time and nothing else, to make the sort of representations that we receive on all sorts of Bills. That is the only point that I was making. I hope that the House will bear it in mind.

Mr. Cook: I previously told the House that I was tired of having my amendments rebutted by Ministers who said that they were defective. I find it both frustrating and galling that on the one occasion when the Minister has confirmed that my new clause is not defective he has gone on to say "But it is not ideal". I shall pull my socks up and bend my mind to the matter in future, and attempt to table amendments that are not merely not defective but are ideal.
However, the ideal is often the enemy of progress. While given a blank sheet and a pen to write my own legislation I might not have come up with this clause, I have tried to come up with a new clause that would maximise support and seek to be a consensus provision. I think that I have done that, and the House should support it.
The Secretary of State sought to rebut the new clause by addressing himself to a question that was so extraordinary that I wrote it down exactly as he spoke it. He asked "Is this the way to pass important Scottish legislation?" The answer is that it is indeed the way. There is no other way of passing important Scottish legislation. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Bill is not important Scottish legislation.
The Secretary of State made an even more remarkable deduction in support of his argument. He said that it was a "strange fact" that in the debate there had not been much opposition to my new clause. He appeared to deduce from that that he ought to recommend the House to oppose the new clause.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot maintain that there has been inadequate debate tonight. The debate has gone on for about two hours. It has been open-ended and any Member with strong views, or, indeed, weak views, could have intervened. The House would not wish me to encourage any hon. Member to do so, but


anyone may speak, even after I have concluded. There has been ample opportunity for any hon. Member to take part in the debate.
I also rebut the Secretary of State's argument that this is too late a stage at which to tackle an important issue. Was the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that when a Bill has been through another place before coming here we should not, as a general principle, attach to it important new clauses on Report? If so, I warn him that many hon. Members, not only on the Opposition side, would reject that as a general principle.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sympathetic to the new clause and I shall support it, but I should like to know how the hon. Gentleman answers the point that, because the new clause has been introduced at such a late stage—and that involves no criticism of him—bodies, associations and Churches in Scotland have not had sufficient time to make their views known to hon. Members.

Mr. Cook: The position of the Church of Scotland is plain and has been on record since the General Assembly of 1968. That is another reason why I find it difficult to accept the Secretary of State's arguments.
The matter has been well chewed over by various organisations. I am not aware of COSLA having discussed the issue, but it was discussed by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland for several years running and finally resolved, in favour of reform, in 1968. I am not aware that the Church of Scotland has resiled from that position.
When the Bill came to the House I had discussions with many hon. Members about whether it would be more appropriate to raise the matter in Committee or on Report. I do not think that I am breaking any confidence if I say that I consulted one of the Ministers on the team handling the Bill. The unanimous view of those whom I consulted was that it would be more appropriate to raise the issue on the Floor of the House, because the House would then have an opportunity to reach a decision in principle, reflecting the views of the whole House and not merely the party political composition of a Committee.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is not the answer to any such criticism that for many years the Lord Advocate has adopted the policy of not prosecuting, and the Secretary of State has not supplied a list of people or organisations who have complained to the Lord Advocate that he is not implementing a law that they want implemented?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend takes me on to a point on which I shall conclude. There is nothing short of organised hypocrisy in a system under which Government after Government tell us that they will not implement the law but simultaneously resist any attempt to change the law. That is not a system which the House should support. The House builds principles on the rule of law and it is not sufficient for the Government to say that the state of the law does not matter because they will give undertakings not to implement it. That cannot be tolerated.
To those who have expressed concern that we are attempting to harmonise Scottish law with that of England I should point out that that is not the main reason why I tabled the new clause. It was tabled because the present law is oppressive of many Scots. It is an unreasonable oppression, which the House should lift from them. We have the opportunity to do it, and I advise the House to take that opportunity.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question raised by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)? It concerns those aged between 18 and 21 who would ordinarily be described as adults. The new clause includes an age limit of 21. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Lord Advocate should prosecute in cases involving people aged between 18 and 21?

Mr. Cook: The position of those aged between 18 and 21 will be the same after the new clause is put on the statute book as it is at present. Anyone indulging in an act with such a person is guilty of an offence and would be guilty of an offence after the new clause gets on to the statute book. I understood the Secretary of State to say that the Lord Advocate uses


the age of 21 as a benchmark in determining whether an offence has been committed with a minor. There will be no difference in Crown Office practice when the new clause is on the statute book.
I understand that the Crown Office and the procurator fiscals' offices take the view, though they may not formally admit to it, that when a person is between 18 and 21 it may be difficult to secure a conviction, because it would be open to the defence to claim that the accused had reasonable grounds for believing that the other person was over 21. Whatever age is adopted as the age of consent, there will always be a gap between that and the age at which an offence is brought to court. That will

continue to be the position after the new clause is on the statute book.

However, that is a detailed matter, to which another place will be able to address itself. I believe that we should address ourselves to the issue of principle, and I hope that the House will accept that this modest reform would lift oppression and repression from a number of Scots citizens who are otherwise law-abiding people playing a full part in the community and who are entitled to the same rights as other members of that community.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 80.

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wheeler, John


Snape, Peter
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Soley, Clive
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Spearing, Nigel
Thome, Stan (Preston South)
Wickenden, Keith


Stainton, Keith
Tilley, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Stallard, A. W.
Tinn, James
Winnick, David


Steel, Rt Hon David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Woodall, Alec


Stevens, Martin
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Woolmer, Kenneth


Stoddart, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Stott, Roger
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)



Strang, Gavin
Waldegrave, Hon William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Straw, Jack
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Martin O'Neil and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Mr. Norman Buchan.

NOES


Alison, Michael
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Bendall, Vivian
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pollock, Alexander


Benyon, W.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rifklnd, Malcolm


Blackburn, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lee, John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Bright, Graham
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Lyell, Nicholas
Speed, Keith


Campbell, Ian
Macfarlane, Neil
Speller, Tony


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Clegg, Sir Walter
McQuade, John
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Cockeram, Eric
Marlow, Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Corrie, John
Mates, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Costain, Sir Albert
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Trippier, David


Dempsey, James
Mawby, Ray
Viggers, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Waddington, David


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wakeham, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Moate, Roger
Wall, Patrick


Elliott, Sir William
Monro, Hector
Ward, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Watson, John


Fell, Anthony
Mudd, David
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Murphy, Christopher
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Myles, David
Wolfson, Mark


Goodhew, Victor
Neale, Gerrard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Gray, Hamish
Needham, Richard



Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nelson, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Neubert, Michael
Mr. John MacKay and


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham
Mr. Michael Ancram.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

OFFENCES OF SOLVENT INHALATION AND SALES TO MINORS FOR THAT PURPOSE

(1) The use of solvent adhesives for inhalation shall be an offence.

(2) Any person convicted of selling solvent adhesives to a person under the age of eighteen for the purpose of inhalation shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) Any person under the age of eighteen coming to the notice of the police as indulging in solvent inhalation shall be reported to a Youth Panel.— [Mr. Dempsey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6 pm

Mr. Dempsey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
New clause 3—Solvent abuse.
New clause 5—Abuse of solvents.

Mr. Dempsey: The purpose of the clause is to seek more effective ways of dealing with a problem that is becoming more and more serious, especially in the West of Scotland.
The problem has been known for some years. I have been concerned with it for five or six years since I found that it was taking place in my constituency. Following what is known as solvent inhalation—more popularly acknowledged in my part of the country as glue sniffing—three young people, who got very high on glue sniffing, lit a fire. Two of them heaped the fire on to a 14-year-old constituent of mine, who died subsequently from the injuries that he received from that fire. There was no question but that it was the inhalation of the solvent that contributed to his tragic death.
Since that time we have learnt of other tragedies. It is estimated that in the deaths of 17 persons a major contributor to the cause was glue sniffing, or solvent inhalation. The extent of the problem clearly gives great cause for concern, but


it is very difficult to know what more effective action could be taken. The overwhelming majority of those concerned are under 18, and a recently circulated report states that the largest single unit among them is composed of young people of 14 to 15. The estimate is that at the very least 10,000 are involved in this malpractice.
What happened at a recent school council meeting indicates how little the authorities know of the problem. One teacher stated that no fewer than 114 schoolchildren in that small school were indulging in the practice, and that neither the police nor the social work department knew anything about them. It is obvious from what is known that only a minimum number of young people are involved.
There are five health districts in Glasgow. Only one of them has a clinic. It is estimated that 800 young people are attending that clinic. If there were clinics in the other four districts we should have a better indication of the size of the problem. If there were clinics in the Lanarkshire district of the health board the size of the problem would surely convince people that it is not being tackled sufficiently seriously.
Some hon. Members may not have heard the full details of the problem. The malpractice of glue sniffing affects the brain of the young person. It also affects the liver, the balance of the muscles, and the ability to concentrate. It affects the ability to resist illnesses, disease and troubles. That is the effect that the practice has on young people.
I have been concerned for some time about how we should tackle the problem. I have to urge, first, that it be made an offence. It should also be made an offence for retailers to sell these commodities to young people.
It has often been argued that there are so many offending items that it would not be feasible to draw up rules and regulations to deal effectively with the problem. I am not impressed by that argument. I grew up in the shop assistants trade and eventually became a branch manager. There were certain commodities in the shop that neither I nor any of the staff could sell to young people. There is nothing unusual about that. Indeed, there are many items which a

chemist, in his discretion, may feel should not be supplied to young people because of the fear that they may be misused. We should therefore disabuse our minds of the idea that it is impossible to introduce some sort of legislation to prevent the sale of these commodities on the scale that is taking place at present.
There are some who may say "Why not try to get the voluntary co-operation of the shopkeepers?" That has been tried. We had a voluntary scheme only a few years ago, when the Coatbridge police canvassed all the shopkeepers. All except one co-operated. The one who did not co-operate was the nigger in the woodpile. He was involved in the bulk of the trade because he had no scruples about being involved in a problem affecting young people.
There is always a bad apple in the box; therefore some sanction will always be necessary if we are to try to control the distribution of these dangerous commodities to young persons. I felt that this aspect should be mentioned in the clause, so that the Secretary of State and his colleagues would have an opportunity to consider it.
There are more ways than one to make alcoholic liquor. In the working-class area to which I belong I have seen all sorts of gadgets and elements being used for making alcohol. I should not like to mention them here in case the publicity had a counter-productive effect, but if we were to decide that we could not control the sale of liquor to persons under 18 because of the other avenues available to them there would be no legislation whatever dealing with the sale of alcohol to such people. The same argument applies to cigarettes. There are dozens of ways in which young people can cook up something like cigarettes without having to buy them, but that is no argument against trying to introduce some type of restrictive legislation.
Recently I was approached by a constituent who had a licence for a gun. He gave me all the details of the unlicensed materials that can be bought. I understand that 1 lb. of a particular powder will produce 200 bullets. That can be done without a licence and with no control whatever. If it were to be argued that because these avenues are available we should not license guns,


there would be no gun licences in this country.
The mere fact that we might find it difficult to control numbers or to control the sale of these various substances to young people is no adequate reason why we should not apply our minds to the problem and try to do something about it.
Under both Conservative and Labour Governments, the Department of Health has not gone far enough in its efforts to deal with the problem. It is too serious to be dealt with simply on the basis of health education. We are talking here of the lives of young boys and girls. I understand that one out of every six people indulging in the habit at present is a young girl.
The tragedy is that by the time these young people become adults they are beyond the help that can be given through health education. They are in need of curative treatment. At an early stage they need to attend assessment centres, which should be set up in different parts of urban communities. In Scotland we require special hospital facilities, where strict and effective curative treatment can be administered to rescue those young people from a life that would otherwise be disastrous.
The reason why I am anxious to air the matter today is that, above all, there should be legislation whereby the police, when they catch these young adherents, can send them to special centres for care and attention. They cannot do so at present in Scotland because they do not have the authority. Most of the police are placed in a position whereby they can only telephone the parents and say that they have caught their son or daughter indulging in glue sniffing, and that they would be obliged if the parents would take him or her home. Beyond that, they have no authority.
The object of the new clause is to try to give the police the authority to refer those young people to the children's panel. I was advised that in order to have that objective placed on the amendment paper I had to go through the routine of the three subsections of the new clause.
I am anxious to learn whether the Minister can give any advice, assistance

or direction whereby our police will be able to arrange for referrals of young people to children's panels, which can determine the most appropriate action. I am not anxious to make the youngsters criminals. I do not believe that prison sentences, fines or other punishments are needed. Treatment is needed, but the young people are not getting it, mainly because nine out of 10 cases are unknown. They never come to the notice of the authorities. The best that we can do is to prevail upon the guidance of teachers, voluntary services and nurses. Recently, a nurse approached me and offered to set up a voluntary clinic, with the service of a doctor, to try to help these young people and to cure them before it was too late.
Few cases are discovered, because our legislation lacks the teeth to deal with the problem. I hope that from our deliberations will emerge a more concrete, effective and worthwhile procedure to enable young people to be given proper treatment, and to enable the problem to be minimised, if not eliminated.

Mr. John MacKay: I know that over many years the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has conducted a campaign about this serious problem, and I pay tribute to him. Having been a member of the Committee and discussed the new clauses on this subject, I am sure that he will not be too surprised to hear from me that we do not yet have a solution that will be acceptable to the Law Officers or to the Minister.
I shall not go over the arguments that we discussed in Committee—that would be tedious repetition, though not foreign to the Labour Members of the Committee. The proposition that we should try to make solvent inhalation an offence was dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland in Committee, and he pointed out the defects. He also said that at present the Strathclyde police were referring cases to the children's panel The instances of glue sniffing are not declining in the Glasgow conurbation, which tends to suggest that referral to children's panels is not the way forward. Although it may be part of the way forward, it will not solve the problem in any way.
The only possible solution must come from looking at and possibly stopping the supply of these inhalants. I refer the House to the case that was often quoted in Committee—that against the Glasgow shopkeeper Mohammed Malik. He was accused of selling glue to 12 children
wilfully, culpably and recklessly, knowing that they would inhale it to the danger of their health and lives.
The sheriff said that either Parliament must outlaw glue or the High Court must use its declaratory powers.
We are still trying to find a way in which the House can outlaw the supply of glue, if it is to be sniffed. In Committee there was total agreement on the question but we failed to find a solution. I took the view then, and I take the view in my new clause, that we must pursue the matter at source. Obviously we shall not stop glue or its derivatives from getting into the hands of children who want to sniff it. I have talked to children in the Glasgow conurbation about this problem, and I was more horrified by their comments than I have been by the press reports. It seemed to be common knowledge among the children as to the incidence of sniffing, the number of children who sniffed glue, where they did it and where they obtained the glue.
This is a major problem. We are not merely talking about the odd tube of glue dropping out of father's cupboard or being bought. We are talking about fairly large amounts of glue that have to be bought from shops selling both over the counter and by self-service. The sale of glue in self-service shops would be more difficult to control, but if it has to be taken off the shelves that will be a small price to pay.

Sheriff Irvine-Smith said:

"If this court were to intervene and hold this complaint relevant the question still arises how the principle will be limited in practice. If it cannot be limited and it is the supply of the glue that is to be proscribed, it seems to me only Parliament could do so."

Those remarks were directed at us. My new clause tries to do that.

It was pointed out to me in Committee that to list the substances was tantamount to advertising, so I have removed that provision. It was also pointed out that

a parent who had unknowingly given glue to a child could be caught by my proposed clause. I have also dealt with that. I have tried to make the new clause as simple as possible. It is a genuine attempt to try to stop the sale of the glue at source.

I shall be accused of putting the onus on the shopkeeper. I shall be told that a shopkeeper cannot know whether Jimmy Smith is buying a tube of "Stick-it" to sniff. However, if a shopkeeper finds that he is selling lots of tubes of glue to lots of little boys and girls, he should be suspicious. The clause is designed to deter rather than convict. The police should be able to tell a shopkeeper that they believe that he is the source of glue that is being sniffed and that he should be cautious to whom he sells it. He should be more guarded about selling it to older children who may pass it on to younger ones. The police should be able to ask him to accept his social responsibility. They should also be able to point out that Parliament has passed this legislation and that if, after such warnings, there is evidence that a shopkeeper is continuing to sell glue, he can be prosecuted. That may help the police to put an end to the large-scale manifestation of the practice.

The purists will argue against having a law that will seldom be used. It may be difficult to establish a watertight case in law. However, legislation could make the task of the police easier. To water down legal principles slightly will be well worth while if we can prevent children from being drawn to the practice. If mothers and children can see that Parliament has made an effort, and if the police have some measure to help them, we shall have done the public a service. Therefore, I am tempted to press my new clause to a Division.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend says that his purpose is to assist the police. I am concerned that the new clause will make their task more difficult. The police are charged with enforcing the law. It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to prove a criminal offence, which will complicate instead of ease their task.

Mr. MacKay: That is a danger. In the case of Malik, the Crown considered


that it had sufficient evidence to prosecute, without the advantage of such legislation. In cases involving the most flagrant selling of glue to children, knowing that it will be sniffed, the police may well get a conviction. Legislation could help to encourage shopkeepers to tighten up. Supermarkets would be encouraged to remove such substances from their self-service displays to other less accessible areas, where they hold other dangerous items.
I ask the Government to consider the proposal seriously. Young lives are being ruined. Let us dilute the legal purity if we can thereby improve the position of the authorities, parents and schools in Strathclyde.

Mr. Dewar: This is a difficult problem, to which there are no obvious and easy solutions. If there had been we should doubtless have had legislation before now. We are dealing with the proliferation of various products, and not a small, neat, easily defined category of products that give off the fumes that produce incapacitating effects. We are not dealing with a specific system of outlets, as with the licensed trade, where certain shops are licensed to sell a category of products and where control is therefore easier. The products that children can, with ingenuity, use for glue sniffing are found in every corner grocery store and supermarket.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), I do not believe that sending a child to a children's panel would help. I was once professionally involved with the children's panel system, and I believe that section 32 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 is sufficient to allow any child who is manifestly involved in glue sniffing to be referred and put under supervision if that is considered to be the best way of mobilising help and resources for him. There are no short cuts.
I am conscious that by tabling new clause 5 we may be raising false hopes and expectations. The problem causes real fears. I believe that my constituents would like to think that Parliament was searching diligently for solutions and was involved and aware, rather than putting the problem to one side because trying to do something about it was

fraught with difficulties and could, at the margin, be counter-productive.
I hasten to say that I do not believe that we should legislate for the sake of legislation. I shall listen to the debate with care. I know the substantial structural and administrative arguments that will be deployed. At the end of the day I might be convinced that we should not press new clause 5 to a Division.
I do not wish to over-labour or over-dramatise the point, but in the housing schemes that make up the Garscadden constituency glue sniffing is a major problem, which is affecting the quality of people's lives. I hear that not only from the people who talk to me about the problem of glue sniffing but from mothers who are extremely anxious about the effect on their children. They recognise the importance of group pressure and fashion among young people. They are finding it harder and harder to persuade their own children to stand aside from what has become, in some areas, a prevalent activity among teenagers. I know how important it is, because I obtain insight into it when people write to me about different matters.
Frequently, I receive letters from people asking for housing transfers because they have had trouble on stairways with youths sniffing glue. They have tried to clear them off the stairs and there has been continuing trouble and problems for them and their families. They complain about the difficulties of living in some areas of Glasgow—one or two of which are in my constituency—from which people want to move because of the multiplicity of social problems.
6.30 pm
This is a most unpleasant problem. Young people act to their own detriment, putting themselves at risk legally and physically because of their irresponsibility. Further, the problem affects others living in the area. I am conscious that this is a major problem. The big drive for the long-term solution must be in terms of health education and propaganda. I agree that specialised units are needed for extreme cases where intensive social and educational support can be given. I should like to see a much heavier investment than we have managed in the past and than I fear we shall manage in the present economic climate. Anything that I


say about the new clause must be seen against that background. I do not want it to be thought that I am suggesting that the new clause will make a major impact on the problem. However, it may make a marginal contribution, for reasons to which I shall come. My remarks may overlap those of others, and therefore I shall not dwell on arguments already advanced by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay). New clause 3, which stands in his name, is similar to new clause 5, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The clause with which I am connected is a little more restrictive, in the sense of making it.
an offence to supply as part of a commercial transaction to any person under the age of sixteen years".
The clause of the hon. Member for Argyll has no such limitation. If we are to legislate at all, the slightly more restrictive category would make the concept more workable and manageable. It is the impact on young people, especially those of early teenage, which worries us.
Let me explain why I think that this clause could make a marginal contribution. It goes back to the prosecution which was mounted in the Glasgow sheriff court, to which the hon. Member for Argyll referred. That is the case of the procurator fiscal of Glasgow against a Mr. Malik, a shopkeeper in Glasgow. He was charged with selling glue to people, who were named specifically in the complaint
well knowing that they were purchasing said cans and tubes intending to inhale the vapours of the said glue to the danger of their health and lives, and this you did wilfully, culpably and recklessly, and they did inhale the said vapour to the danger of their health and lives.
That prosecution was brought with the permission of the Crown Office. It was the subject of an extremely interesting judgment by the learned sheriff of Glasgow, Sheriff Irvine-Smith. He gave a lengthy and valuable judgment. Basically, at the end of the day he upheld the plea that the complaint, on the face of it, disclosed no offence that was known to the common law of Scotland. He said that if the courts had a right to create new offences—and this is a matter of dispute—it was certainly a right that lay only with the High Court of the Justiciary, not with the Glasgow sheriff court. He went on to argue that if this were to be an

offence Parliament would have to do something about it.
Apart from the interesting technical arguments, the part of his judgment that struck me was his summation. I quote from the last paragraph of the judgment. Sheriff Irvine-Smith said:
If what is alleged in this indictment is in fact happening it is a very grave matter indeed—what Mr. Carmichael called a grave social evil—and, accepting that"—
it is clear that the sheriff accepted that—
it is a matter on which the law ought to be in a position to intervene.
He went on to say, obviously regretfully in view of that, that the law did not allow for intervention and, therefore, he had to uphold the plea to the relevancy of the complaint and dismissed the matter.
If Sheriff Irvine-Smith is right that this is a matter on which the law should be able to intervene, I contend that new clause 5 is worth seriously considering, as it is an attempt to give grounds for that intervention. It would be applicable only in a small number of cases. It is clear that a large number of the products which are used for glue sniffling are shoplifted. That is well known to those who struggle with the problem. Many others may be bought by adults and passed to youngsters later, or obtained by youngsters in the home. A large number will be bought by youngsters from innocent shopkeepers, with no idea of what they are going to used for, where prosecution would be a monstrous imposition and, in any case, would patently fail for lack of evidence.
However, there may be occasional cases where it is clear that a shopkeeper over a period of time is acting irresponsibly in his selling policy, and this has been pointed out to him by community involvement and the police. The point has been driven home; he has been warned and asked, and has still proceeded to sell to children whom he knows are abusing the solvents. He must well know why they are purchasing them.
If it is said that that may be difficult to prove, I accept that. However, cases may obviously arise where it is at least thought by the responsible Crown authorities that proof is possible. In the case of Malik that circumstance existed. We know that that prosecution was brought. If the Crown had managed to get over


the plea to the relevancy—over that preliminary hurdle—presumably it was in a position to adduce facts from which the sheriff would clearly have been able to deduce that the facts in the complaint had been proved to a satisfactory standard under the law of Scotland.
If that were the situation, if the Crown Office felt keenly enough about it, and if it were satisfied that it had a case to present, it could bring that prosecution and consider the appeal.
The document in my possession is a stated case which was requested by the procurator fiscal. The fiscal did not proceed with it, presumably because, when he read it, he concluded that the legal arguments used by the sheriff were unchallengeable as the law stood. The very fact that the Crown Law Office thought that it was worth starting the stated case procedure shows that it felt that this was a case which it was important to try in the interests of teaching this shopkeeper to take a more responsible line in dealing with children in an area of high risk.
I unashamedly advance the new clause as going only to the margins of the problem. There is no way in which it will cut into the abuse of solvents. That will need a social change, propaganda, persuasion, social work support and education. It may be a long, slow and hard battle. On the analogy of the Malik prosecution, there may be in Scotland, perhaps in my constituency and perhaps in others, shopkeepers who are abusing—as that shopkeeper abused, in the view of the Crown Office—their responsibilities to the public and who are irresponsibly continuing to push their wares, well knowing the damage being done as a result.
In new clause 5 I want to put upon the statute book a basis that would allow the intervention which Sheriff Irvine-Smith, in his judgment, said was so well justified in the circumstances which were, at least, alleged. He did not know whether proof would have stood up. As I say, it is not a great departure. However, of all the possible legislative initiatives it is perhaps the most modest in its intention. It seems to me to be the most practicable, and is well worth considering.
I have re-read what the Solicitor-General said in Committee. He was trying to be helpful. Indeed, he was helpful, because he pointed out many difficulties which were genuine and substantial. His last sentence was:
We shall certainly try to find a simple form of words which overcomes the major problems that I have outlined, one of which I have said that we shall excluded, namely, any attempt to list such substances as we regard as falling into the category."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 24 June 1980, c. 1545.]
Like the hon. Member for Argyll I have tabled my new clause so as to exclude the drawing up of an exhaustive list of substances and I have tried to meet as many of the objections of the Solicitor-General for Scotland as possible.
I hope that the Government have looked sympathetically at this possibility because I believe—I make no apology for this—that if we could legislate in this limited way we would advertise our concern. That would be appreciated by my constituents and by many other people. Such legislation would not be mere tokenism, because in its limited way it would make a real though modest contribution to the fight against a real social evil.

Mr. Harry Ewing: It may be helpful if I intervene at this stage to speak to new clause 5. I should say to the Secretary of State straight away that new clause 5 is not meant as a criticism of any lack of action on the part of the Government. I speak as someone who has previously had responsibility for attempting to deal with this difficult matter, and I was never really completely comfortable—I suspect that this may well be the feeling of the Secretary of State—when I answered my hon. Friends on this vexed question.
It is worthy of note that so important has this issue become that it is not the first time today that the House has debated solvent sniffing. It was the subject of the Adjournment debate that ended just after 2 o'clock this morning. My reason for commenting on that is to illustrate that glue sniffing is not only a Scottish problem. It would be a tragic error if we gave the impression that solvent sniffing is purely a Scottish problem. The problem has developed over the last three or four years, and is a United Kingdom problem.
Nevertheless, we are dealing here with Scottish legislation, and we are charged with the responsibility of attempting to do something to deal with this problem in Scottish legislation. I speak as one who once had to view the corpse of a young boy from Lanarkshire who had been found dead behind a gas holder, having taken part in solvent sniffing. Without painting a horrific picture, I can tell the House that that sight was something that will live with me for a long time.
It is not generally appreciated that those who are unfortunate enough to get involved in solvent sniffing and suffer the fatal consequences suffer great bodily distortion. There is strong evidence that such sniffing causes brain damage, and I am sure that the identification of that young boy by his parents is an experience that will live with them for the rest of their lives.
I do not wish to over-dramatise the position, but I think that we all accept that over the last six years a particularly serious problem has developed. Our concern is with what happens to those who sniff solvents. Though we have concentrated our comments on the matter of solvent sniffing, there is the added question of how a youngster moves from what we regard as a soft drug—if we may describe solvent sniffing as a soft drug activity—to hard drugs.
When I had to deal with this problem I was advised that there was no strong evidence that those who sniffed solvents subsequently moved on to hard drugs. I suspect that that picture has also changed. It is for those reasons that I believe that Parliament has the responsibility seriously to consider taking the steps defined in new clauses 3 and 5. The difference between them has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). The difference between those new clauses and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is that new clauses 3 and 5 seek to deal with those who retail solvent substances, and new clause 2 seeks to deal also with those who inhale the solvents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said—I join in the tribute paid to him by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay)—it is difficult, if not impossible, to deal with those who inhale solvents.
I hope that the Secretary of State will clear up the matter of referrals by the Strathclyde police. Referrals in Strathclyde are not made on the basis that a youngster is sniffing solvents. Sniffing is the basis for the police action, but the referral is made because the child is beyond parental control or for some other reason. The police may not refer youngsters to the children's panel on the basis of solvent sniffing. I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to clear up that matter.

At one time I had a great deal of faith—I still have—in a project that was undertaken, I think, in the East End of Glasgow. There was a co-ordinated effort by the police, the social work departments and a host of other agencies, and a register was kept of those who were caught—to put it no higher than that—in the act of solvent sniffing. When the Secretary of State replies to the debate I hope that he will provide up-dated information on how that experiment is progressing.

I think that it would be worth while for the House to hear whether the work done by Dr. Joyce Watson about five years ago has advanced to any great extent. I pay tribute here to one who has worked long and hard in this area. Dr. Watson has made a major contribution in seeking to solve this problem, and I chink that the House would wish to hear whether further progress has been made in her work.

I do not wish to delay the House, since a number of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate, but I wish to say two things about the changes that have taken place. Hitherto there has been no demand by police forces in Scotland to make either the sniffing of solvents or their retailing for inhalation an offence. I think that that is an accurate statement of fact. There has been no demand to create these new offences.

At the weekend, however, I got the impression that that position had changed. I noticed in a weekend newspaper that the chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway, Mr. Alex Campbell, said that the sniffing and retailing of solvents should be made offences. That is the first time that I have known a senior police officer go on record as saying that that


should happen. I do not know whether Chief Constable Campbell is still chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and whether he was speaking on his own behalf and that of his force. The Under-Secretary of State is indicating that Mr. Campbell is no longer chairman of that association. Nonetheless, he is a police officer of long experience and is held in high regard in police circles, and when a police officer of that standing makes that kind of pronouncement we must take the matter seriously.

My final point relates to health education, which has a major role to play in dealing with this problem. I may be clutching at straws, and it may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), who has strong views on this matter, will take the view that we are merely tinkering with the problem by mounting an extensive advertising campaign. I do not speak of a massive advertising campaign, because that would be to overtax the ability of the Scottish health education unit in dealing with the problem, but the campaign is an attempt to bring home to youngsters and their parents the dangers of glue sniffing.

I am aware of the counter-arguments about the danger of glamorising something when we want to achieve the opposite effect. I appreciate that by going in for such a campaign we may glamorise the problem and that youngsters who have not hitherto been attracted to this nasty habit of solvent sniffing may be attracted to it. However, if we are to have the involvement of the Scottish health education unit in an advertising campaign—this will probably be the only contentious point in the debate, but I do not apologise for making it—the Secretary of State will have to restore its budget.

In this financial year the Scottish health education unit has had its budget cut to the extent that it will be able to purchase only 75 per cent. of the advertising space that it purchased in the last financial year. If the unit is to continue to deal with the problems of lung cancer derived from smoking and of alcoholic psychosis derived from over-drinking, and all the other social problems for which it is responsible, and in addition is

to take on this task, the Secretary of State must look at the financial resources available within new St. Andrew's House and restore the unit's budget and, if possible, add to it to enable it to go in for this extensive advertising campaign to seek to bring home the dangers of solvent sniffing not only to children but to their parents.

I know that the Secretary of State will be anxious to give us cause for hope, because this problem concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is no divide between us. No one has the monopoly of concern about the consequences of solvent sniffing for children and their parents. My remarks are made on the basis that we are all equally concerned about this serious problem. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will at least give us cause to hope that something will be done to bring about a reduction in the numbers of children involved in solvent sniffing.

I do not want an announcement that a working party has been set up. Governments of all political complexions have sheltered under the working party approach. Whenever a problem is difficult, their first race for shelter is to announce "We have set up a working party", and during the next four years Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and answer questions on the basis that a working party is considering this or that aspect of a particular problem. I hope that the Secretary of State will not lumber us with yet one more working party. We have been through all this before. This subject has been well debated. As I said, there is no monopoly of concern about this issue. I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the budget of the Scottish health education unit and indicate any new thinking that has developed in the Scottish Office on this matter within the past two or three years. I hope, too, that he will be able to send out a ray of hope to those who are suffering from the disastrous effects of solvent sniffing.

Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Bill Walker (Perth and East Perthshire) rose—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Walker: I do not normally dress in this manner to talk about solvent sniffing.
I intervene briefly because in Committee we covered this matter thoroughly and deeply. Those who served on the Committee expected something to be done that would be meaningful and helpful. The new clause moved by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), which is not exactly the same as the clause that I moved in Committee, deals with those who partake of this obnoxious habit. I felt that there would be problems in prosecuting those who were vending the goods and I still believe that there are difficulties.
Nevertheless, I should inform my right hon. Friend that in the absence of anything meaningful from him in reply to the debate I am prepared to support new clause 3 if my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) presses it to a Division. I am sure that many hon. Members want to feel that something has been done about this problem. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to remove my fear that we are about to shelve this matter for a further period.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I feel obliged to put on record a contrary view to that which has been put forward so far. I hope that the Secretary of State will not seek to take advantage of the fact that I may go into the Lobby with him tonight, because my reputation is going through a somewhat trying period now.
I have always felt that it is wrong to leave the impression that legislation will solve this problem, knowing the apprehension and worry of parents whose children are involved in solvent sniffing. I make no allegation against any of my hon. Friends or Conservative Members on this occasion—I am tempted to do so at times—because I recognise that there is a genuine concern in the House to reflect the desire in the community that something should be done about this problem. However, I cannot support any of the three new clauses. They are contradictory. They express only the difficulty of trying to define the substances that cause the problem.
I do not know what a "solvent" is in legal terms. Perhaps some of my legal Friends will be able to help me in this respect. People sniff other substances that cause trouble. Therefore, we must define them and make it an offence to sniff

them. The clauses do not say that. They say that it will be an offence for a shopkeeper to sell any substance that can be sniffed. There is confusion about the definition—or lack of definition—of the substances that can give rise to this abnormal behaviour. I am concerned about this lack of definition of the substances that can give rise to this problem and whether it should be an offence for an individual to indulge in sniffing such substances or for a shopkeeper to sell them.
My information from contacts in my constituency is that youngsters are indulging in sniffing not only glue but paint remover, hair lacquer and petrol. Do they come under the category of "solvent"? How can we, in all conscience, ask the police to enforce a law such as this in the belief that it will cure this problem? I do not see how we could possibly prosecute a shopkeeper for selling lighter fuel, paraffin or petrol in legitimate circumstances which are known to all of us. Therefore, we have to fall back on the need to exhort, to encourage and to set an example.
On a party point, I find it depressing that in my constituency there are closes of empty houses which form the breeding grounds or gathering places for youngsters wishing to indulge in this habit. It is also depressing that the Government have selected the sale of council houses as a top priority and that they can find a few thousand pounds to run advertising campaigns in favour of such sales.
I feel strongly about this issue, because I know of parents who are worried sick. They write pathetic letters, hoping that I shall support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). In saying this I do not wish to reproach my hon. Friend, but it is pathetic that parents should think that by passing ill-defined and unthought-out measures their children will be reclaimed from whatever dangerous circumstances they may live in. For those reasons, I shall go into the Lobby tonight to vote against the three new clauses.

7 pm

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It may seem effrontery for an English Member to enter the debate. However, I rise briefly to support the new clause. If it proves successful in


Scotland, I hope that it will spread to England. A problem exists throughout the United Kingdom. If the proposed legislation meets with success, we shall be only too happy for it to spread to the other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The contribution of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is very pertinent and is relevant to last night's debate on glue sniffing, which was raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). A year ago, in Committee, we debated glue sniffing during discussion of the previous Government's Bill. I participated in that debate. The same problems were mentioned, including those of identification of substance, of enforcement and of proving guilt. The Bill passed away, and we now have a successor to it. At the time, many of us hoped that glue sniffing would burn out just as fashions burn out. Fashions change for youngsters. Sometimes the best way to deal with such a problem is to hope that it will disappear in the course of time.
The evidence is clear. Glue sniffing has become endemic. It is not confined to restricted areas but has become generalised. There is also evidence that it damages the health of young people. When the House debates such a subject it must consider whether glue sniffing is likely to continue and develop. If the House judges that glue sniffing is likely to continue, and to harm the physical health of our children, the balance must swing in favour of legislative action.
There are plenty of examples of certain products being shielded from and prohibited to children for their sakes and for reasons of health. Cigarettes and alcohol are probably two of the most common examples. I accept that such products are, by their nature, specialised. They are easily identifiable and easily prohibited. However, it is not easy to stamp out the use of such substances among young people. Health education has had limited success in curbing tobacco smoking among youngsters. In recent years it has probably had little effect on the consumption of alcohol.
I also accept that youngsters who are older than those who fall within the prohibited category go into off-sales premises to buy alcohol for the use of those who

are younger. The solution may be chemical. Methylated spirits were doctored to make the liquid less palatable. In the same way, chemical ingredients could be included in the more common solvents to make it improbable that children would sniff them. That involves technology, and there is no guarantee that such a solution can be found.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) raised some valid points. I concede that a legislative solution will not be completely effective. It may make only a slight dent in the problem. If it deters only one youngster from partaking in glue sniffing, or deters shopkeepers from selling the product, we shall have done something to cut down the problem. The balance has swung heavily in favour of action by this House. If there is something wrong with the drafting of a particular measure, the Government can take it to the House of Lords.
I assure the Secretary of State that the problem is increasing. It is only a matter of time before a Government will be required to act. As the hon. Member for Lancaster said, we have an opportunity to take the first step If we make mistakes we can cure them, but that step must first be taken.

Mr. David Marshall: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) put the case in support of new clause 5 extremely well. I hope that he will divide the House on the clause.
I support the new clause. Glue sniffing is reaching alarming proportions in Glasgow and in many other cities throughout the United Kingdom. Every week horrifying reports appear in the press about its results. Even if we allow for the exaggeration of press reports, the problem remains worrying and it is not confined to one part of the United Kingdom. Glue sniffing occurs in all cities, particularly in inner city areas and among the older parts of cities.
I am not concerned only about the harm that glue sniffers do to themselves. Our greatest worry is that glue sniffing leads to damage to property, and to the lives of innocent citizens being put at risk. Youngsters under the influence of glue are completely unaware of the effects of their actions. Sometimes they have no control over them and are unaware of


what they are doing. There have been disastrous cases involving loss of life and great damage to property.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and for Garscadden, I am repeatedly asked by my constituents in the East End of Glasgow what Parliament is doing to tackle the problem. They ask when Parliament will do something definite to solve it. This subject is of great concern to parents and the police. The police are virtually powerless to combat glue sniffing, because of the lack of legislation. Although I appreciate that there are problems about the introduction of such legislation, I sincerely believe that we should make the effort. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said, if legislation makes it more difficult for younsgters to obtain glue and if it makes it less attractive to shopkeepers to sell glue indiscriminately—as some of them, to their shame, do—and if we can prevent even one youngster from suffering the horrible effects of glue sniffing, it will be worth while. I hope that the House will support the new clause 5.

Mr. Jim Craigen: It is a sad reflection of the times that we have to debate this subject at all. Last night the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) raised an Adjournment debate on the subject. The problem is therefore not exclusive to Glasgow. I should like to emphasise that, because an hon. Member gave the impression that only Glasgow had that problem. Unhappily, it plagues several predominantly urban areas in the United Kingdom.
This place is a constant source of education. I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and I remembered arranging a meeting between him and Dr. Joyce Watson at the beginning of 1977.
Perhaps there has been a change of attitude since. The view that was expressed then was that we could not legislate on this matter and that health education was the best approach. Frankly, there are limits to the extent to which leaflets or television advertising can alter the problem. My view is that such leaflets and television advertisements usually mean employment for the public relations

ment but do not do a great deal to help the parents and the youngsters who are up against the problem.
Tonight we have an opportunity to make some inroads in an attempt to deal with the problem. I am not altogether happy with the drafting of the new clauses. My own view is that we are more likely to have success by tackling the problem through youngsters who are under the influence of solvent-based products rather than by trying to control the sale of the products. One must acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). The range of solvent-based products that can be used is mind-boggling. We are talking not only about petrol, but about boot polish, bicycle repair kits, nail polish, hair lacquer and all sorts of everyday products which it would be exceedingly difficult to ban, far less control, in the shops. We are more likely to have success if we tackle the problem from the point of view of youngsters under the influence of solvent-based products.
From my discussions on this topic, and from the representations that have been made to me, it seems more likely that we shall succeed by going in that direction. The police are uncertain about their powers. Very often they do not receive the parental support that is necessary. The establishment of advice clinics for youngsters has been a useful development. It is one which I hope the Scottish Office will support, because many of these youngsters need help.
At the same time, we must be realistic. Many youngsters do this once and never do it again. Therefore, we are trying to get at the ones who become addicted to the practice, because they are the ones who really need help. I do not want to turn them into criminals. They require support which, for reasons which we cannot determine here, is not always available, be it at home or among their peers. Unfortunately, the police are usually able to act only when another crime takes place, such as results in vandalism or anti-social behaviour.
We have an opportunity to do something tonight. I am not altogether happy with the wording of the new clauses. However, if we do not take this chance to do something, we shall simply allow the


problem to grow. One thing is certain, and that is that it will not go away.

Mr. Younger: This has been a thoughtful debate, as befits a subject which deeply concerns hon. Members in all parts of the House and, indeed, hon. Members from both sides of the border. We are very much indebted to the hon. Member for Coatbridge ad Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and his hon. Friends, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay), for tabling the new clauses. It concentrates our minds when we address ourselves to specific proposals, and this has been a valuable way of using the time in this debate. I am grateful to all those hon. Members.
I reiterate that this problem will not go away. It is becoming more serious, not less. It is evident from what has been said tonight that none of us has an easy, quickfire, simple solution to the problem. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) for giving us the benefit of his experience at the Scottish Office, making it clear that he also has done a great deal to solve this problem and that he was as baffled about it as everyone else.

Therefore, I hope that those hon. Members who have tabled the new clauses will not take it amiss if I say that I honestly do not think that any of them would stand the light of day as legislative provisions. I think that probably all hon. Members would agree with that view.

We must be careful about creating a statutory offence of any kind, particularly in this instance. As the new clauses suggest, in order to create a statutory offence—to sell these substances to people under a certain age, or whatever variant of that we produce—one must start by defining what the substances are which it will be a statutory offence to sell. One must define what the offence is to be—whether it is to be purchasing it or inhaling it. One must define what inhaling is, and one must spell out the conditions under which that would be an offence. I do not think that any hon. Member who has listened to the debate will deny that all those questions remain unanswered by what has been said this evening.

As many hon. Members have pointed out, it is not just a question of glue. A

multitude of different products is involved. Even if I were to try to list them, which I have no intention of doing, I would be deficient in many of them, and there are many others which might also be invented or used for the purpose. Therefore, in that sense we are miles from being able to define the problem.

It would also be difficult to put an onus on the shopkeeper, even supposing that we knew what the products were. It would be difficult to put an onus on the shopkeeper to make a judgment as to whether the child asking for glue, or for one of the many other substances, was doing so with the intention of using it for sniffing or inhaling. That would be difficult in respect of any shop—even the corner shop, where the people concerned might be known to each other. However, it is absurd to imagine that the girl at the checkout desk at the supermarket will be able to make a judgment of that kind. We know that some of the substances used for inhaling are shoplifted. Obviously that cannot be legislated for, in this sense anyway. In other cases, they are bought for perfectly legitimate purposes and picked up in the home or transferred from one person to another, such as the purchaser to a friend.

Without labouring any of these points, I suggest that the drawing up of a statutory offence, supposing that we had a clear idea of exactly what was involved, is far removed from the provisions of any of the new clauses, admirable though they are. That is not to say that there is nothing which can be done. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) was absolutely right and courageous to point out the truth of the matter, which is that it is no kindness at all to lead people to think that there is a quick, easy legislative way of removing their genuine worry. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) made the right approach in defining the much more difficult and less precise ways in which we shall have to work carefully and with much deliberation to reduce what is a growing evil.

We believe that we have to start with comprehensive health education. This view was conveyed in a number of circulars by the previous Administration. The circulars were sent to directors of social work, chief administrative medical officers, chief constables and directors of education. They stressed the value of


health education and focused attention on the need for earlier recognition of the problem by those likely first to come into contact with those affected by the practice of inhalation or sniffing. This point was made by the hon. Member for Mary-hill.

The circulars mentioned the assistance available, the need for co-ordination of local effort to provide information and services and the case for the formation of joint liaison committees by local authorities in the areas where this is a major and growing problem. Much is already being achieved at local level by the cooperation of doctors, teachers, social workers and police and through the Scottish health education unit, which maintains a lively interest in the matter. More recently, solvent abuse has been further considered by an ad hoc group of the advisory council on social works. This group recommended that the abuse is best dealt with by continuing education about its dangers rather than by the mirage of legislation that is not practicable.

Nor is it right to suggest that the police are hamstrung becaus solvent sniffing is not a criminal offence and that there is nothing that the police can do about it. Nothing could be further from the truth or reality. If a child comes to the notice of the police as having indulged in solvent inhalation and no other offence is committed, it is considered important that the parents should be made aware of the circumstances. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland conveyed this view to all chief constables in a circular last year. He drew attention particularly to the effective co-ordination procedure developed by Strathclyde police for dealing with solvvent abuse. As some hon. Members will know, this procedure was described in some detail in Committee. I do not propose to go over the matter again. It is recorded in the Hansard reports of the Committee. It is interesting to note that, following the inspector's circular, similar procedures have been adopted by other police forces, notably Lothian and Grampian. I firmly believe that this is a proper, fair and most effective way of handling the problem.

Mr. Dempsey: The right hon. Gentleman is only confirming what I said—that police powers are limited to notifying

the parents. What he overlooks, very badly I regret to say, is the large number of parents who are unco-operative. Some parents are irresponsible. Some parents could not care less. What happens in those circumstances when there is no co-operation?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he is right. This is a baffling problem for social workers and those involved.
There is the further step that can be taken, and which is taken, in appropriate cases for those who continue the practice despite the warnings and advice. That is the situation that arises if the parents, as the hon. Gentleman says, are irresponsible, disinterested or not prepared to help. In these cases a child can be, and is, declared to be beyond parental control. This can mean consideration of proceedings by the reporter of the children's panel under section 32 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. It would be referred as a child beyond parental control. In that context, the question of an offence does not enter into the matter. It is a matter of the child being beyond parental control.
I propose to continue to keep this problem of solvent abuse under active review and to continue to encourage local arrangements to ensure that outbreaks are quickly identified and dealt with by the police, teachers and social workers and, where necessary, by doctors and with the help of the children's panels.

Mr. Craigen: What does that mean? The right hon. Gentleman is simply watching the problem. Teachers, doctors and others are already involved at individual level.

Mr. Younger: That is a fair question. There are numerous ways in which the Scottish Office, through all its parts, can keep pressure on those concerned in areas of difficulty to examine the circulars, to follow the advice and to consult others. We are also prepared to give a great deal of advice. This is not, of course, the most glamorous, dramatic and quick solution. It is, however, the way in which difficult problems are tackled and solved. The chief constables are working to this end. We have many contacts through the health department in the Scottish Office and much expertise


to contribute. This will be done by putting pressure on those concerned to follow the guidance that I have mentioned.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), I am not sure what that statement adds up to, except an expression of good wishes and personal control. I accept the difficulties of definition in relation to the supply of solvents. How does the right hon. Gentleman reply to the fact that the Crown Office, presumably through the procurator fiscal in Glasgow, felt that it may have had sufficient evidence on which to base the invention of a charge to deal with the problem? If the Crown Office, a Government office parallel with that of the right hon. Gentleman, felt that there was a case where something could be done, it is surely not beyond his own Department, which has responsibility for legislation relating to these matters, to come up with a formula that would allow the Crown Office to bring a charge that might stick in circumstances where the police, the procurator fiscal and the Crown Office believed that there was sufficient evidence on which to proceed.

Mr. Younger: The Crown Office can no doubt respond to that question if it is put down. Obviously the Crown Office felt that it had to make a deliberate attempt to bring a prosecution to see whether it was possible to do so. In that particular case, it tried but failed. I understand that it failed—I have not studied the case in detail, although the hon. Gentleman may have done so—because it was not able to make the charge stick. This suggests that the sort of difficulties that I have outlined are real and can be obstacles to taking legal action.

Mr. Dewar: I accept that there are many problems. I understand that in the Malik case there was a plea on relevancy. The stage was never reached of deciding whether the case would stick in terms of proof. Counsel appeared on behalf of the shopkeeper and said that there was no such offence known to the law of Scotland. That was upheld by the sheriff. The Crown Office, which presumably took the decision that the pro-

secution could proceed, obviously thought that it could make it stick in terms of evidence or it would not have mounted it.

Mr. Younger: The Crown Office did the proper thing in trying to bring a prosecution, but it did not succeed. I am reminded of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll in one part of his excellent speech. He said that he did not want the legal purists to prevent action from being taken. I am not worried about legal purists. The problem is that the pragmatists cannot find a way that will make such a law, if introduced, produce the result that we all desire. That is why I have listed the difficulties in defining the substances and taking the measures that have been suggested.

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: I believe that those of us who did not take part in the Committee proceedings should not detain the House now. But as the Secretary of State knows, I have had lengthy correspondence about Mr. David Cook of the EIS with his ministerial colleagues. I have not heard the Secretary of State say that there will be any discussions with the manufacturers. Many of us understand that by adding certain chemical substances one can cause vomit and distaste. Perhaps through the manufacturers—by introducing certain regulations about the manufacture of the glue itself—we can best approach this difficult problem.

Mr. Younger: That is a very interesting suggestion and I shall certainly look into what the hon. Member has said. But it still does not solve the problem. We are dealing with very many different sorts of substance. It is a massive job, but that does not mean to say that we should not look at the hon. Member's suggestion.
I think that I have detained the House long enough. I am grateful to hon. Members who have tabled these new clauses. I applaud their wishes in doing so but—

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Secretary of State has just given a very helpful reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Therefore I think that I should give notice that I certainly do not intend to press new clause 5.

Mr. Younger: I am very grateful to the hon. Member. I recommend the House not to support any of the new clauses. I applaud the reasons for which they were tabled and I can assure hon. Members that my hon. Friends and I will do all that we can to keep this problem under review. We want to improve our methods of dealing with it, but I really do not think that legislation of the type suggested here is practical.

Mr. Dempsey: The debate has been very informative. My only request to the Secretary of State is that he should not concentrate on the difficulties but should get down to the possibilities. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

DETENTION OF YOUNG OFFENDERS

'—(1) After the commencement of this section, it shall not be competent to impose detention in a detention centre or in a young offenders institution or a sentence of borstal training, but detention in a youth institution may be imposed on an offender who is of or over 16 and under 21 years of age in accordance with section 207 or 415 of the 1975 Act.

(2) Any reference in any enactment to any of the following sentences in Scotland—

(a) detention in a detention centre;
(b) detention in a young offenders institution;
(c) borstal training,

shall be construed as a reference to detention in a youth institution.

(3) The Secretary of State shall prescribe certain institutions as youth institutions for the purposes of this section.

(4) For each of sections 207 and 415 of the 1975 Act (restriction on imprisonment of persons under 17) there shall be substituted the following section—

" Detention of young offenders.

(1) It shall not be competent to impose imprisonment on a person under 21 years of age.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a court may impose detention in a youth institution on a person of or over 16 and under 21 years of age where—

(a) that person has been convicted of an offence which but for this section would be punishable with imprisonment; or
(b) the court would have power but for this section to impose imprisonment, otherwise than by sentence, on him;

but the period of detention imposed under this section on any person shall not exceed the period of imprisonment which could be

imposed on him if he were of or over 21 years of age.

(3) A court shall not impose detention on a person under this section unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate; and the court shall state its reason for that opinion, and the reason shall be entered in the record of the proceedings.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the court shall obtain information about the offender's circumstances from an officer of a local authority or otherwise, and shall take into account that information and any other information which is relevant to his character and to his physical and mental condition.".

(5) The following enactments—

(a) section 20 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 (remission for good conduct); and
(b) sections 59 to 62 and section 64 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (release on licence),

shall apply to a person who has been sentenced under section 207 or 415 of the 1975 Act to a period of detention in respect of an offence as they apply to a person who has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment.

(a) section 9 (transfer of young offenders between institutions);
(b) section 10 (transfer to prison of persons over 21 etc.);
(c) section 12 (supervision of persons released from young offenders institutions);
(d) section 51 (interpretation),

shall have effect subject to the amendments set out in Schedule (Amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963) to this Act.'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 63, in page 38, line 39. leave out clause 45.
No. 74, which is a new schedule entitled Amendments of Sections 9, 10, 12 and 51 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 (c. 39)

1. In section 9—

(a) in subsection (3) for "has been" substitute "is", and for "young offenders" substitute "youth";
(b) in subsection (4), in paragraph (a) after "1957" insert "the Armed Forces Act 1976", and in paragraph (b) for "young offenders" in both places where it occurs substitute "youth".

2. In section 10, at the end of subsection (3) there shall be added the following


proviso—"Provided that section 12 of this Act and section 212 or 421 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall continue to apply to a person so transferred to prison."

3. For section 12 there shall be substituted the following section—
Supervision of persons released from youth institutions

12.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person on release from detention in a youth institution in pursuance of a sentence shall, where the term of that detention was 6 months or more, be required to be under the supervision of such person as may be specified in the notice to be given to him by the Secretary of State on his release—

(a) where he has been released on licence under section 60 (1) or section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, until the expiry of a period of 12 months from the date of his release on licence or until the expiry of the licence, whichever is the later;
(b) in any other case—

(i) where the term of the detention was 6 months or more, but less than 18 months, until the expiry of a period of 6 months from the date of his release from detention, or
(ii) where the term of the detention was 18 months or more, until the expiry of a period of 12 months from the date of his release from detention, and shall, while under that supervision, comply with such other requirements as may be specified in the said notice.

(2) The requirements specified by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above shall be in addition to any conditions specified in any licence granted under the said section 60 (1) or 61.

(3) Without prejudice to any conditions specified in any licence granted under the said section 60 (1) or 61 and subject to subsection (5) below, any period of supervision mentioned in subsection (1) above shall terminate when the person under supervision attains the age of 23 years.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order extend the provisions of subsection (1) above to persons detained as aforesaid whose term of detention is less than 6 months but not less than 3; and, subject to subsection (5) below, such persons shall on release from detention be required to be under supervision until the expiry of a period of 6 months from the date of their release from detention.

(5) The Secretary of State may at any time modify or cancel any of the requirements specified by him under subsection (1) above or order that a person who is under supervision shall cease to be under supervision.

(6) If, before the expiration of the period for which a person is required under this section to be under supervision, the Secretary of State is satisfied that that person has failed to comply with any requirement for the time

being specified in the notice given to him under subsection (1) above, he may by order recall him to a youth institution; and thereupon he shall be liable to be detained in that institution, and if at large he shall be deemed to be unlawfully at large:

Provided that—

(i) any such order shall at the expiration of the said period cease to have effect unless the person to whom it relates is then in custody thereunder;
(ii) the Secretary of State shall not make an order under this subsection where the person concerned is also subject to a licence granted under the said section 60 (1) or section 61.

(7) The period for which a person may be detained in pursuance of an order under subsection (6) above shall not exceed 3 months.

(8) The Secretary of State may at any time release a person who is detained under this section; and the provisions of this section shall apply in the case of a person so released subject to the following modifications—

(a) in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and in subsection (4)'release on licence' and 'release from detention' shall mean respectively 'original release on licence' and 'original release from detention';
(b) the period during which he shall be liable to be detained on further recall shall be the period referred to in subsection (7) reduced by any time during which he has previously been detained under this section.".

4. In section 51 (5), for the words from "section 1" to "of age)" substitute "section 207 or 415 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975".

No. 119, in page 82, line 3, leave out Schedule 5.

Mr. Ewing: At the outset I should say that this is an undisguised attempt to give the Government an opportunity to reconsider their penal policy for offenders aged between 16 and 21. Amendment No. 63 would leave out clause 45. This would be replaced by new clause 4, if it were accepted. Amendment No. 74 is the new schedule that would be required to go with new clause 4, and amendment No. 119 would leave out the present schedule 5 which would be replaced by the new schedule created by amendment No. 74.
The penal policy for young people between 16 and 21 in Scotland is something that has caused some concern and given rise to a great deal of debate. We went through this subject at length in Committee. The Government's proposals are to have a young offenders' institution and a detention centre only. The institution of borstall would be abolished. Our new clause 4 would also


abolish borstal but it would also abolish the young offenders' institution and the detention centre. We would have one single youth institution where youngsters between 16 and 21 would be sent by the courts on conviction. The arguments in favour of this are very strong. That is why we have brought the subject to the Floor of the House. We want the House to have an opportunity to decide the matter.
Our proposition would mean that young offenders between 16 and 21 convicted by the courts under the circumstances defined in new clause 4 would be sentenced to serve a term in a youth institution. We argued long and hard in Committee that in order to achieve this we would have a series of youth institutions with one or two being reception centres to which the youngsters would be sent from court to be allocated to the various parts of the penal system.
It is not really necessary for me to rehearse all the arguments again but it is important for me to place on the record that the proposal contained in new clause 4, with a slight variation, is a replica of the provision in the Labour Government's Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which fell at the last general election. That proposal is based on the working party report that was published by the Scottish Office in 1969 when my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was Under-Secretary with responsibility for penal affairs.
We consider that it would be a great tragedy if at this late stage the Government did not change their mind about their approach to young offenders. We know all the arguments that the Government have submitted in favour of short, sharp sentences. However, we have not heard that policy justified. In Committee we explained the effect that these short, sharp sentences would have on young people. We explained at great length that among those youngsters who are determined to pursue a life of crime, the short, sharp, shock treatment of a detention centre would become a sort of virility symbol. They would go around wearing the Glé nochil badge on their sleeves so as to boast to their fellows that they had been in that delention centre and that this was one more step along the road that they were following. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim

that the short, sharp, shock treatment would do any good or reduce crime among youngsters.
We are all interested in reducing crime among young people, but the treatment of young offenders is probably the most important aspect of penal policy. I have argued not only here in the House but in Committee and outside as well that youngsters, of all people, have a right to the rehabilitation process. They have a right to an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves into society. As an Opposition, we consider that the proposals contained in our Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, and now contained in new clause 4, are much more effective in two respects.
First, they would be more effective in protecting society. We accept that society is entitled to protection. Secondly, they would also be more effective in giving the youngsters the opportunity of rehabilitation—of coming back into the community and playing a more meaningful role in society. For these reasons, and having considered the arguments made in Committee, I believe that the House should accept our amendments.
No doubt the Under-Secretary, in his leisure time between the last Committee sitting and the Report stage, has had a great many hours to read the Committee proceedings. He may well be persuaded that our approach is far better. We have seen some movement by the Government today in relation to one or two aspects of the Bill. Perhaps I am over-stating the feeling that there might be a bit more generosity shown by the Minister tonight than there was in Committee. Perhaps I will be disappointed in my feeling that the Minister is in a generous mood. Hon. Members have already referred to the fact that this morning the Government conceded seven new clauses in another Committee in which we are involved and that seems to indicate that the Minister is in a generous mood.
Not only would the Secretary of State do the Opposition a favour by accepting the new clause; he would do the Government a favour. Certainly, he would be doing penal policy a favour. The Government have taken the wrong road. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this fifty-ninth minute chance to come back from the brink he will have to return to the subject in the not-too-distant future and ask the House to accept that


he made a mistake. He will have to accept that the better road is that suggested in the new clause.
The issue was discussed in great detail in Committee. Many examples were given of how youngsters respond to the regime and treatment which we suggest. I hope that the combination of arguments made in Committee and on Report will convince the Government that new clause 4 is the correct road. I look forward to the Minister accepting the new clause. I warn the House that if he does not accept the new clause we shall push the issue to a Division.

Mr. Buchan: The new clause is important and significant. It should be discussed, and if it is not accepted we should vote upon it. The Bill is punitive. We must bear that in mind. The main thrust of the Bill is concerned not with the rehabilitation or checking of offenders but with their punishment. The type of punishment is contained in clause 45, which we discussed at great length in Committee. It would take too long to repeat the arguments. I had hoped that the Government would have a change of heart, but if they have not, no reiteration by me will change their attitude.
Several things must be said and clearly understood. The Government are shifting the treatment of young offenders away from the people who are best equipped to treat them—away from those who have been trained and have some understanding of youngsters who have erred or sinned and committed a crime. Such youngsters must, one way or another, find their way back into society. Rehabilitation has become a hackneyed term However, re-habitation is necessary.
The Government propose to leave the judgment of how an offender should be treated to the court and the judge. They are reducing flexibility of treatment. Treatment and custodial care are to be based on the length of sentence. The Government are making a fundamental error. They say that if the sentence is four months or less the offender will go to a detention centre, and if the sentence is over four months the offender will go to a young offenders institute. The length of sentence imposed by the court because of the nature of the offence will determine the type of custody and treatment.
7.45 pm
There is a distinction between the nature of an offence and the nature of an offender. A wide range of people might commit the same offence. Young people should be given the opportunity to have a wide range of treatment in tailored institutions. Instead of providing that, the Government have made the crucial error of deciding that the type of treatment—not the length of treatment—will be determined by the length of sentence, which is based on a judgment by a court in relation not to the nature of the offender but to the nature of the offence. That is a flaw in the Bill.
Reference has been made to the work that I did when a paper was produced advocating such a flexible method. The new clause is an attempt to introduce such a method so that the prison section of the Scottish Office will have a range of institutions to provide the correct treatment for offenders.
Our only vision of a detention centre is that which was greeted with applause at the Tory Party conference, when the Home Secretary announced that he would be tough with crime and young offenders would receive a short, sharp shock. Clause 45 is the fulfilment of that pledge to the blue-rinsed set of woman brainpower at the Tory Party conference. It has nothing to do with the mature judgment of society.
The short, sharp shock has failed. In the fifteenth report from the Expenditure Committee the Home Office is reported to have said that there is
evidence to show that reconviction rates are improved by longer sentences, shorter sentences, or alterations in regime of any kind so far attempted. On the contrary, such evidence as there is suggests that these factors are irrelevant as far as reconviction rates are concerned.
That is a portmanteau statement. It says that custodial treatment has not been successful in rehabilitation. What are the Government doing? They are returning to the worst and most primitive kind of custodial treatment—the short, sharp shock.
The Expenditure Committee report went further, and said that the short, sharp shock regimes often failed because, from ordinary humanity, prison


officers were unwilling, in sufficient numbers, to take on the role required, precluding as it does any pretension to helping or caring.
The report stated that
it is hard on officers to be hard on prisoners; it is not their job to treat inmates harshly; being in prison is the punishment.
There is a theoretical error, and an error in practice that is being repeated. In Committee and elsewhere I quoted figures which showed that in 1978 about 900 young people were admitted to existing detention centres. In the same year about 3,400 inmates were reconvicted. The system does not seem to work. Even within the regime the system does not seem to be successful. In 1978, 350 inmates committed 743 internal offences. So much for the success of the short, sharp shock. The Government are taking a backward and regrettable step. They have an opportunity to rescind their decision.
I shall not discuss at great length the new clause, which is a substitute for the wrongly headed clause 45. We discussed elements of it in Committee. The new clause would enable us to tailor the institution not to the offence but to the offender. After the court has dealt with an offence and determined the length of sentence, the offender will be put in care with the aim not only of ensuring the security of society but of putting the offender on the road to rehabilitation. The short, sharp shock prevents a return to society and rehabilitation.
The Government are wrong. They should withdraw their clause and replace it with ours, because it gives hope to the inmate and to the prison service. The one thing that cannot be missing in any prison regime is the element of hope. If the prison officers also lose hope, the short, sharp shock applies equally to them. It is hardship, cruelty and inhumanity. I hope that the Government will think again.

Mr. John Maxton: Clause 44, which the new clause and the amendments seek to replace, is part and parcel of pure Conservative political dogma and ideology, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has just said. It is designed to satisfy the blood lust of the blue-rinsed, twin-setted and pearl-laden ladies of the

Tory Party. It has no valid reason in terms of trying to solve the problems of crime, particularly juvenile crime, in Scotland. It does not work, and it will not work.
In fact, the clause goes against one of the Conservatives' ideologies—the spirit of individuality, a person's right to be looked at and dealt with as an individual. The clause tries to institute a regime which is the opposite of that. It tries to destroy individuality. It gives all young offenders who have committed offences for which they will be given a sentence of less than four months exactly the same treatment—and harsh and hard treatment at that. It does not take into account their weaknesses, whether physical, psychological or mental. It gives them all a hard, harsh regime.
We have an example in the Glenochil detention centre of how the regime is applied. There are normally 109 young men always being given chores with no valid purpose. They have to work long hours, sweeping up floors, cleaning their rooms and making their beds, but doing nothing which is purposeful towards their coming out afterwards and getting a job in whatever career they may have. It destroys individuality and reinforces the violent nature of those who are violent and the inadequacies of those who are inadequate in the first place.
The regime makes those who are inadequate hate it, but it will not stop them from going back. My hon. Friend has given figures on that. In Committee I gave some figures from an organisation called "Cast Iron" and the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties on the number of people who, having been in the Glenochil detention centre, recommitted crime thereafter. I was mocked from the Conservative Benches, because Conservative Members believed that my sources were unreliable. It was not giving figures that they accepted, because they considered them to be from the "trendy Lefties" of the civil liberties movement.
The simple fact is that the Solicitor-General for Scotland would not or could not produce any figures to refute those that I gave. He never produced any to show that my statistics and those of "Cast Iron" or the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties were wrong. All that he could do was to pooh-pooh us and say that the sources were wrong, and that


therefore the figures must be wrong. That is no basis for a reasonable argument.
In Committee, several of us asked the Solicitor-General for figures. I said that if he were prepared to produce statistics that refuted my arguments I would look at them seriously and reconsider how I regarded the matter, but on no occasion was he prepared to do so. I hope that even at this late stage he will be able to produce one or two statistics.
All the evidence suggests that the regime does not work. It does not stop youngsters from recommitting crime if they have been put into a detention centre. We believe that the regime has an effect that makes many youngsters commit crime again. It has a bad effect on the staff, as my hon. Friend also said. I am sorry that he put most of the arguments that I had intended to use. It has a bad effect on the staff in two ways. My hon. Friend gave one, which was that the members of staff feel that it is an inhumane regime and therefore are not prepared to carry it out. Arguably, the reason why we now have only one detention centre in Scotland, at Glenochil, is that many prison officers were not prepared to apply that sort of regime.
The regime has another effect. Many prison officers, particularly those dealing with juveniles, are qualified and trained in psychiatric nursing and other specialties to try to help the young offender. Those people, who are genuinely seeking to rehabilitate the young offender, will find such a regime very offensive and will not find it easy to fit into. There may therefore be a decline in numbers of prison officers and problems of recruitment if the regime is carried on.
The regime is wrong from that point of view, and it does not work. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will take out clause 44 and accept our new clause, which tries to deal with each juvenile offender on the basis of that person alone, and tries to give him the sort of guidance and help that is required.

Mr. Rifkind: Essentially, two points have been raised in the debate. I shall try to answer both.
First, while both sides of the House recognise that the existing sentencing policy for young offenders is inappropriate and inadequate, and should be re-

placed or reformed, there is a difference between us about where to draw the dividing line between the proper responsibilities of officials and the administration in regard to the proper place for youngsters to be sent to, and the proper role of the judiciary.
In effect, what the Opposition are saying—they said it in their own Bill in the previous Parliament—is that once a youngster has been convicted and the judge has determined the length of the sentence, the court should have no further interest in what happens to him, and that it should be purely an internal administrative decision as to which establishment he should go to—whether a borstal, a young offenders institution or a detention centre.
We go some of the way with the Opposition in that, because we accept that nowadays—although perhaps not 20 or 30 years ago—the form of treatment in a young offenders institution and a borstal is so similar in many respects that it is not necessary or appropriate to predetermine that matter at the time of conviction. Therefore, to that extent we think it right that those two should be combined.
It is when we come to the question of sending the offender to a detention centre or a young offenders institution or other establishment that we draw a distinction. They are two very different forms of treatment, and we think it appropriate and right that there should be a role for the judge to determine not merely the length of sentence but the type of regime that is suitable for the offender. There is no doubt that the judiciary also takes that view, because it made strong representations to the previous Government to that effect. There is a clear distinction between us on this matter.

Mr. Buchan: Why should the judge decide? What knowledge or experience does he have to suggest that he can determine what kind of treatment an offender should have?

Mr. Rifkind: What is certainly appropriate and legitimate for a judge to decide is whether the sort of regime that is suitable and appropriate is to be found in a detention centre or in a more training-oriented regime in a borstal or, to some extent, a young offenders institution.
Many youngsters prefer to have that matter determined in open court when


they are convicted rather than leave it to the internal administrative mechanism, under which they have little opportunity to express their own view at the time of decision. Once a youngster has been convicted, the person appearing on his behalf can make representations in open court as to what the defence thinks an appropriate form of allocation. It should not be assumed that the youngsters involved would necessarily prefer the Opposition's proposal on the method of sentencing.

8 pm

It would be possible for someone who had wandered into the debate without knowing the situation in Scotland to believe that detention centres had not existed in Scotland and that the Government were contemplating the introduction of a new form of treatment. In fact, we have had detention centres working for many years in the way that they will continue to work over the next few years. The criteria for sending a youngster to a detention centre may be changed, but, although there may not have been such centres south of the border, the short, sharp shock treatment is available in Scotland and has existed for many years, under a number of Labour Governments, without anyone suggesting that it should be discontinued. When the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was responsible for these matters we had no proposal from him suggesting that it was an improper, obscene or barbaric form of treatment.

Mr, Buchan: May I state the facts? The whole purpose of my paper of that period was related precisely to that fact.

Mr. Rifkind: We do not know the internal discussions that the hon. Gentleman had with his colleagues at that time, but we know that the Government of which he was a member did not make any changes. The detention centres continued and the hon. Gentleman was responsible for them until the end of his term of office. It is worth mentioning that fact to put the matter into perspective.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was wrong to suggest that medical, physical or psychological circumstances of an offender would not be taken into account when the form of treatment was being

determined. I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that if there were special medical, physical or psychological factors, a judge would not send a youngster to a detention centre in the first place.
There is a provision in clause 45 that if during a youngster's period within a detention centre the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are physical or psychological factors that make it inappropriate for him to continue in the centre, he has a specific power to ensure that the young person is transferred to a young offenders institution. The circumstances that concerned the hon. Member for Cathcart are met in the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: My point was that the mental, physical and psychological differences between individuals are not taken into account in the regime carried out in the centre.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is a high degree of regimentation, he is correct. If he had visited a detention centre—he indicates that he has not—he would appreciate that recognition is given to the individual circumstances of offenders. They are not treated like a row of mechanical objects. There is a greater degree of uniformity than one would find in a young offenders institution, but it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to go to the opposite end of the spectrum to try to demonstrate what happens in a detention centre.
The hon. Member might like to visit Glenochil before he comes to a firm conclusion.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): Send him there.

Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's age would justify that form of disposal.

Mr. Maxton: I asked in Committee and earlier today whether the Minister could give us figures from Glenochil to show whether, it works as a method of solving the problems of juvenile crime.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government have made it clear on every occasion that the matter has been discussed that we accept that there is no hard scientific evidence


to prove that the short sharp shock regime is a magic formula to deal with young offenders. However, we maintain that it is one of an alternative series of punishments and that detention centres are particularly appropriate for those serving sentences of between one and four months, because that is the normal length of regime in a detention centre. We have the advantage in Scotland of having seen the system operate over the years. I cannot accept the contention that it has been less successful than other forms of disposal of young offenders.

Mr. Buchan: The burden of proof is on the Minister. The short, sharp shock was to be the solution. The hon. Gentleman must have had something on which to base that belief. He now claims that the Government never suggested that that would be the solution. After that glorious Tory Party conference when they all cheered and cried "We have the answer; the short sharp shock will put down the young vandals", the Under-Secretary tells us that they do not know whether that will work.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman purports to quote remarks that I never made and uses them as a basis for disagreeing with the Government's policy. That may satisfy his sense of reason, but it does not satisfy mine.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the onus of proof was on the Government. There is no such onus in Scotland. We have had detention centres for a number of years and there is no intention of changing the sort of regime that is carried on there. Detention centres existed in Scotland throughout the time of the Labour Government. I do not accept that we are changing the sort of treatment received by youngsters in Scotland.
No new issues have been raised in this debate. The matter was fully debated in Committee.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister insists that as there is a detention centre in Scotland he is not changing anything, yet he also claims that he cannot produce the statistics that show whether the centre works. If it has been in existence for all this time, the hon. Gentleman's civil servants must surely have collected some figures to prove whether it works.

Mr. Rifkind: Various figures have been used by various people in support of various arguments. I know that the hon. Gentleman's views will not be changed by various figures that have not satisfied him in the past.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Minister goes on at length about nothing changing. In that case, why do we need clause 45?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill makes changes in relation to which youngsters go to detention centres. Instead of that matter being decided in one way, it will be decided in another, and all sentences of between one month and four months will in future be served in a detention centre. I hope that it is not a matter of surprise that that fact is explained in that way.
I was seeking to respond to the suggestion that the form of treatment provided in a detention centre is a new form of treatment in Scotland. We have had detention centres for several years. The previous Government did not attempt to abolish detention centres or the regime carried on in those centres.
The Opposition cannot say that because a Conservative Government wish to use the same establishment that was considered suitable for penal purposes under a Labour Government that has become a wicked and irresponsible policy, which should not be accepted. They may say that, but I do not believe that they will convince the House or the people of Scotland that it is a logical, rational or sensible approach.

Mr. Ewing: When the Under-Secretary reads his reply he will realise that it has been unsatisfactory and, in many parts, misleading. The Bill removes flexibility from the treatment of young offenders aged between 16 and 21. There has been considerable flexibility over the years. The Minister has told us and the country that all young offenders who are sentenced to periods of imprisonment of between one month and four months will serve that time in a detention centre. That has not previously been the case. That is a major change in the penal system for youngsters of between 16 and 21 years of age.
On the point about judges and their knowledge of the treatment best suited to young offenders, it seems astonishing


that the Minister should call in aid the point that the judges are best fitted to decide the treatment. In Scotland the range of treatment available to the judges over many years has now been reduced not to two choices but, in the case of a one to four months' sentence, to only one course. Unless the youngster has some physical or mental defect the judge cannot decide that he should go to some other part of the youth penal system. He has to go to a detention centre whether or not the judge wants that—

Mr. Rifkind: Mr. Rifkind rose—

Mr. Ewing: I wish to finish my point before the Minister intervenes. He said that all young offenders serving sentences of between one and four months would serve them in a detention centre. If the Minister wishes to intervene to change that statement I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee and, presumably, read clause 45. It states specifically that if the judge feels that there are special reasons why the youngster should not go to a detention centre, he may order that he should not go there, and that his reasons accordingly.

Mr. Ewing: That is right. I fully accept that. But the Minister has gone to great lengths, not only in clause 45 but in his public utterances, to explain what the special reasons are expected to be.

Division No. 422]
AYES
[8.13 pm


Adams, Allen
Dewar, Donald
Hooley, Frank


Allaun, Frank
Dixon, Donald
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed


Alton, David
Dobson, Frank
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Anderson, Donald
Dormand, Jack
Janner, Hon Greville


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
John, Brynmor


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Dubs, Alfred
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eastham, Ken
Kerr, Russell


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kilfedder, James A.


Buchan, Norman
Evans, John (Newton)
Lambie, David


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Ewing, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Campbell, Ian
Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Hugh


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Frank
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Canavan, Dennis
Flannery, Martin
McElhone, Frank


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Foster, Derek
McKelvey, William


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Freud, Clement
McNamara, Kevin


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McWilliam, John


Crowther, J. S.
George, Bruce
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shattles'n)


Cryer, Bob
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maxton, John


Dalyeli, Tarn
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Haynes, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Deakins, Eric
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dempsey, James
Home Robertson, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

Far from the judges having greater discretion and more flexibility under the Bill, they will have less and less. Except in special circumstances they have no alternative but to send those serving between one and four months to a detention centre. It is important to put on the record that that does not apply only to youngsters serving between one and four months. When a youngster is sentenced to a period of treatment in excess of four months, up to four months of that sentence may be served in a detention centre and the balance in the other part of the youth institution system. Far from there being more flexibility, there is less.

With respect to the Minister, it is not true that the Labour Party or the previous Labour Government did not seek to abolish detention centres. There was a clause in the last Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to remove borstal institutions and detention centres. We were aiming for the global approach for which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was responsible in 1969, namely, the youth institution system. That has been the burden of out argument tonight. On that basis, I wish to put the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 168.

O'Neill, Martin
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Richard (Come Valley)


Palmer, Arthur
Silverman, Julius
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Parry, Robert
Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Michael


Pavitt, Laurie
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
White, Frank R. (Bury * Radcliffe)


Penhaligon, David
Spearing, Nigel
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wigley, Dafydd


Radice, Giles
Stoddart, David
Woodall, Alec


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Stott, Roger
Woolmer, Kenneth


Richardson, Jo
Strang, Gavin
Young, David (Bolton East)


Robertson, George
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Tilley, John
Mr. George Morton and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tinn James
Mr. Joseph Dean.


Rowlands, Ted
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

NOES


Alexander, Richard
Gummer, John Selwyn
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Alison, Michael
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Pollock, Alexander


Ancram, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith
Proctor, K. Harvey


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Hannam, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Haselhurst, Alan
Renton, Tim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hawksley, Warren
Rhodes James, Robert


Bendall, Vivian
Heddle, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Henderson, Barry
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hicks, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hordern, Peter
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Best, Keith
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rost, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Blackburn, John
Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shersby, Michael


Bright, Graham
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Brinton, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Speed, Keith


Brittan, Leon
Knight, Mrs Jill
Speller, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sproat, lain


Budgen, Nick
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Squire, Robin


Bulmer, Esmond
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stainton, Keith


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Luce, Richard
Stevens, Martin


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lyell, Nicholas
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Chapman, Sydney
McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Churchill, W. S.
MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McQuade, John
Tebbit, Norman


Clegg, Sir Walter
McQuarrie, Albert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Cockeram, Eric
Major, John
Thompson, Donald


Colvin, Michael
Marlow, Tony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Corrie, John
Mates, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Costain, Sir Albert
Mather, Carol
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Cranborne, Viscount
Mawby, Ray
Trippier, David


Crouch, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Viggers, Peter


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Waddington, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Wakeham, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Elliott, Sir William
Moate, Roger
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Monro, Hector
Wall, Patrick


Fairgrieve, Russell
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Ward, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mudd, David
Warren, Kenneth


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Murphy, Christopher
Watson, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Myles, David
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Neale, Gerrard
Wheeler, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Needham, Richard
Whitney, Raymond


Fookes, Miss Janet
Nelson, Anthony
Wickenden, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Neubert, Michael
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Newton, Tony
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Normanton, Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Goodhew, Victor
Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Rt Hon George


Gray, Hamish
Osborn, John



Greenway, Harry
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Grist, Ian
Parris, Matthew
Mr. John Cope.


Grylls, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6

REPEAL OF SECTION 15 OF THE PREVENTION OF CRIME ACT 1871 IN RELATION TO SCOTLAND

'Section 15 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1871 is repealed in so far as it extends to Scotland the provisions of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824.'.—[Mr. Dewar.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause deals with a subject that is a much vexer question to our colleagues south of the border but has not had a great deal of publicity in Scotland. I refer to the so-called "sus" law.
It was a slight surprise to me to discover, almost by chance, in casually reading through the second report of the Home Affairs Committee, that section 15 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1871 extends to Scotland the provisions of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which is the specific "sus" provision.
In Committee we tabled a new clause in an attempt to have this provision repealed in Scotland. I think that we were right to do so because it is clear from what we have heard that the Vagrancy Act is very seldom used in Scotland, and that when used it is used on different grounds and in a way that is very different from that in England.
Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act refers to every suspected person or reputed thief. As I understand the position, the reputed thief provision is very seldom used in England, but it is the only concept within section 4 of the Act that is used in Scotland—and even then it is used very sparingly.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, in answer to a written question on 17 June, told me that in 1977 there were 6,762 persons prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act 1824 or under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, which has provisions about known or reputed thieves. In 1978 that figure fell to 504.
It is common ground among all of us who have tried to find out what is happening in this area that, while the separate figures for the two pieces of legislation are not kept, the vast majority of the 504 prosecutions are under the Burgh

Police (Scotland) Act 1892. Although I would not say that prosecutions under the 1824 Act are unknown in my experience—I have come across them in the Glasgow district court—the very fact that I remember them so clearly underlines that they are comparatively rare. Certainly they concentrate very much on the reputed thief possibilities as an alternative to the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act.
I freely concede that the "sus" laws are nothing like as controversial in Scotland as they are in England, for the reasons that I have just given, and also because a great deal of the anxiety—an anxiety which I regard as very well founded and justified—about its operation in England arises because of the relationships between the police and the various minority communities, particularly coloured communities. Fortunately, we do not have that kind of tension in Scotland. We have in Glasgow a significant minority coloured community, but it has not encountered these difficulties. Not, perhaps, because we are essentially more liberal than our colleagues south of the border but because our communities are under less pressure, we have been fortunate in avoiding these difficulties. But, for all that, the general theoretical arguments advanced in the Home Affairs Committee about "sus" still seem to provide substantial reasons for removing the provision from the statute book in Scotland.
The Committee referred in paragraph 25 to the
objectionable nature of 'sus' in principle".
The immediately preceding paragraph stated:
By its very nature, 'sus' is peculiarly liable at best to misinterpretation and at worst to abuse.
The report went on to quote one of the witnesses as saying that:
No other offence is so besmirched by the whole concept of suspicion.
The conclusion was
We are satisfied that it is not in the public interest to make behaviour interpreted as revealing criminal intent, but equally open to innocent interpretation, subject to criminal penalties.
The general argument in principle that is set out in the report would in itself justify the removal of "sus" from the statute book in Scotland. But over and above that is the argument that it was


imported almost by accident in the days of high Victorian Unionism. I see that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is nodding assent. All sorts of pieces of English legislation were imported into Scotland almost casually and without a great deal of thought. Apart from its essential flaws, it provides no useful function in the armoury of the prosecution system in Scotland.
I should like to quote what the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee in reply to our very brief debate, which took place at a time when we were all cooperating in order to get to the end of the Committee stage. It was very truncated but I do not intend to make up for that at any great length today. The Under-Secretary of State advanced an interesting argument. Basically, it was that:
The Government intend to publish this summer a draft civic government Bill for Scotland. It will be published as a White Paper and will include the Government's proposals to replace the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act and the other legislation covering this area."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 24 June 1980, c. 1573.]
The Under-Secretary of State went on to argue that as the "sus" law, unused as it was, dealt with the same area as the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, that as the working party on civic government published an impressive report, and that as we shall have a White Paper and legislation on the subject in the next Session, we should not do anything about the "sus" law at present. I thought at the time that that was a reasonably persuasive argument, and I did not press the matter to a vote.
Since then I have read through the report of the working party on civic government, which makes a number of references to this area of the law. A number of interesting suggestions emerge for the reform of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, which certainly needs reform. I read with interest the comments on the enticement of constables on duty and on the practising of games of hazard. But on other sections, where the 1824 Act might be relevant, the suggestions for change are based on the 1892 Act, and variations and improvements on it. I cannot see how the necessary reforms that will be put in train over the next year to achieve better legislation will in any way be hindered by passing judgment

on the "sus" laws, which are essentially irrelevant to the main question of criminal law in Scotland. It may, of course, help by clearing away a clutter on the statute book.

I recognise that there is a formidable thicket of legislative proposals and legislative changes lying in wait for us next year, and it might be of assistance to cut away some of the thicket by removing the essentially irrelevant suggestion that the "sus" law should be kept on the statute book. It has nothing to do with modern-day criminal procedure in Scotland. It never had very much to do with our criminal procedure, and it is unsound. Having given the matter some thought, and having read again the persuasive arguments—as I thought then—of the Under-Secretary of State, I see no reason why we should not abolish the "sus" law in Scotland. Possibly by doing so we shall set an example for other areas of the United Kingdom.

Miss Jo Richardson: I wish to make only a brief contribution because it is always difficult for an English Member to intervene in an essentially Scottish debate. I have always felt that English and Welsh Members should creep quietly away during a Scottish debate and leave matters to the Scots, but I hope that on this occasion I may be allowed to put in my two pennyworth on the subject.
I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee whose Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration recently produced a report on race relations and the "sus" law. I am sure that hon. Members who are present will have referred to the conclusions of that report when deciding to frame the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the Scottish version of our law was not used in Scotland and that, in a sense, it was irrelevant. I think that it is important to abolish this law, and it is also important for the country to realise that the "sus" law is unevenly used in England. There are large areas in this country where the "sus" law has never been heard of, and certainly never applied. That does not apply only to areas with a totally white population, as compared with areas with an ethnic


minority population. As the Select Committee found, in the Metropolitan area there were large variations between one part of London and another, both of which had roughly the same black population and the same problems of housing and possibly social and racial disadvantage. I take the point that the law is not used in Scotland, but it is also outdated in England and should be done away with.
I was disappointed with the reaction of the Home Secretary, and more particularly that of the Minister of State, to the Select Committee's proposal. On 14 July the Home Secretary generally accepted the Committee's findings, but did not seem convinced that nothing should be put in place of the "sus" law. That sentiment was echoed in his Birmingham speech and in a speech by the Minister of State.
Unused though we know that section of the law is in Scotland, if the new clause is passed it will reinforce the hand of many of us who wish to see the "sus" law disappear in England. I hope that there will be strong support to get rid of the outdated law in Scotland, which will also help England to get rid of her law.

Mr. Maxton: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) that we are delighted to see her participate in Scottish debates, particularly with such a contribution.
Earlier today we voted to reform the Scottish law on homosexuality to make it more liberal to bring it into line with that in England. We now have the opportunity to give a lead to England and Wales over the "sus" law, mainly because that law is not widely used in Scotland. Conservative Members may feel that getting rid of the "sus" law in England could do enormous damage, but that could not be said of Scotland.
I am afraid that the Minister may have at the back of his mind the argument that that example in Scotland may reinforce the case in England and Wales for getting rid of that law. Many Conservative Back Benchers do not wish to get rid of the "sus" law. The Minister will therefore be under strong pressure to retain that law in Scotland, even though it is obsolete, because its removal would set an example to England and Wales.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will see the measure merely as the removal of an obsolete law in Scotland. Conservative Members frequently say that they do not like to put unnecessary laws on the statute book. Here is their opportunity to get rid of an obsolete law. I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.

Mr. Buchan: I hope that this will be my shortest speech on this Bill. I had not intended to speak, but was encouraged to do so after hearing a maiden speech on Scottish affairs by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). Unlike most maiden speakers, she did not spend most of her time discussing her constituency and saying how beautiful it was. She got to the heart of the matter.
The "sus" laws have long been regarded by all right-thinking people as highly reprehensible. Above all, they should be repealed and got rid of as quickly as possible. It is not altogether true to say that they are in complete desuetude in Scotland. On the contrary, they have been used recently. Also, it is true to say that they are rarely used. If there is no intention to continue to use them in Scotland, they should be abolished forthwith in line with the arguments we heard from the Minister every time we tried to introduce fresh clauses and new legislation into the Bill. We were told that they were unnecessary and that legislation should not be cluttered up. Here is an example. If the Government do not intend to use the provision, they can clear it away.
The argument for abolition has already been dealt with as a result of the documents that came out—the working party report and others—suggesting that this would not necessarily happen.
This Bill is the most reactionary piece of criminal justice legislation that we have seen for a very long time. It brings in fresh police powers of detention and search. Above all, in clause 1 there is the question of the identification and naming of possible suspects and witnesses. This adds up to a vicious package of repression. If the Government are prepared to do that, the idea does not go away from my suspicious mind that they may also, at some time, find the necessity—if this is the course that they have embarked upon—to resuscitate the use of the "sus" laws.
Either those laws are not used, in which case they should be got rid of, or they are to be used, in which case the Minister should say so, and we may decide how to vote in relation to that. Both arguments lead to the point that the "sus" laws should be rejected in Scotland.
Now is the time to do away with the law because of the present climate of opinion in the country as a whole—by that, I include England and Wales, rather than Scotland—that the "sus" laws should go. There is a climate of opinion on both sides of the House, as was shown by the decision of the Select Committee, that the "sus" laws should go.
Until the bringing into the House of this Bill, the Minister was widely regarded as a liberal in Scottish legal circles [Hon. Members: "Was he?"] Yes, indeed. Hon. Members may not believe it after the months we spent in Committee. We use the term comparatively. Throughout the sittings of the Committee the Minister and his colleagues were held out as shining lights of liberalism. We are disappointed in the Government Front Bench. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to set his seal of authority on a liberal step forward, not only north of the border. It would be highly regarded and welcomed. He would be seen as returning to the fold of his former ways if he were to announce this tonight.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The last thing that the Minister wants at this stage is to have a liberal label pinned upon him. It would be very dangerous for his advancement in the Government if his former reputation were to be revived. I am sure that he accepted this onerous job of steering the Bill through the House to obliterate those aspects of the reputation that he once enjoyed.
I should like to rebuke the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for the way in which he approached this new clause. It seemed to me that his main object in supporting it was to make Scotland, in effect, a guinea pig for England in that the experiment should be carried out on the body of Scotland for the benefit of England. I cannot go along with that concept. I can only think that he was beguiled and seduced by the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson)

and had to take up the English cudgels in such a strong way.
More seriously, the case for the abolition of this legislative provision was amply made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). It was incorrect of the hon. Member for Barking to indicate that this provision was not used in Scotland. It is used in Scotland. However, it is not used with the frequency with which its companion legislation is used in England.
It is always extremely uncomfortable when one is faced with a complaint containing a charge in which the presumption of innocence had gone away and where one has to found on previous guilt by association. That is the worst condition to be found within the corpus of our criminal law. Ministers always advance that argument, no doubt because when changes are made they like to take the credit for the fact that nothing should be done. The example has already been used of forthcoming changes in the burgh police provisions which allow this matter to be tidied up and taken care of as part of a comprehensive re-examination of these provisions in Scots law.
If it has been accepted, as indeed it has, that the "sus" provision is bad law, there is no argument for maintaining it on the statute book for another year or two. When the opportunity is provided for us to get rid of bad law, that opportunity should be taken immediately. Therefore, I urge the Minister, regardless of what the impact of this change might be upon his colleagues in England, to do his duty in relation to Scotland, to concede that these provisions are bad, and that they should be rooted out. He should urge his hon. Friends to support the new clause.

Mr. Millan: I read the report of the proceedings in Committee and I have looked up the appropriate references in the report of the working party on civic government. The working party was set up in 1972 in anticipation of local government reform. I am ashamed to say that it reported as far back as January 1976. I do not know when we shall have proper legislation. We were promised a draft Bill in the summer but there is no


sign of it yet. It will be a fascinating Bill when it arrives.
I do not believe that because we shall have a comprehensive Bill dealing with the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act and associated legislation we should not make this minor change in Scotland by abolishing a provision which is not relevant to Scottish circumstances, which is rarely, if ever, used and whose removal from the statute book would be a legislative tidying up, to put it no higher. That tidying up is required.
Of course, the provision has its implications for England, but I do not wish to argue the English situation here. A Select Committee has dealt with Scotland as well as England and this is a legislative opportunity to remove the provision affecting Scotland. There is not a similar opportunity to do the same for England, but if there were I would wish to see the provision removed for England as well. We must take the opportunities that are presented to us, and the opportunity has come to us in Scotland.
The Minister's argument in Committee was like the argument used in the debate on new clause 2, which was that there is nothing much wrong with what has been put down on the Amendment Paper, and that in other circumstances the Government would be happy to see such a provision on the statute book but that they did not want to be inconvenienced by having such a provision in this Bill. The House did not find that argument particularly persuasive on the earlier provision and I think that the House will not find it persuasive on this new clause.
This is a matter of public interest. The Select Committee looked into the matter and came to the firm view that this provision should be abolished. That view was taken by an all-party Committee and the members of the Committee maintained that view in a debate in the House.
In relation to the report of the working party on civic government, whatever is in the draft Bill will make no difference in the Scottish context to the abolition of this provision and I hope that the House will take the opportunity to get rid of it. It is redundant and it is. of course, in certain circumstances south of the border an extremely offensive provision. As it is, in Scotland it has not raised the same kind of controversy, because our

circumstances are different. Nevertheless, as the Select Committee said, it is an offensive provision in principle and we should get rid of it as soon as possible.

Mr. Rifkind: I think that the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) will agree that when the Select Committee considered the "sus" law it did not consider the position in Scotland, naturally, because that was not where the area of controversy had existed. The findings of the Select Committee, of great importance as they are to the situation south of the border, are not of any direct help to the position in Scotland. Even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) acknowledged in Committee and on the Floor of the House that the circumstances which led to the operation of the "sus" law south of the border do not exist in Scotland. We cannot ignore that factor. We are entitled to take it into account.

Mr. Dewar: I think that the Under-Secretary will accept that there were two main attacks on the "sus" law in the Select Committee's report. One was on community relations, which I agree is not a matter relevant to Scotland, but the other was a fundamental attack upon this kind of law, the onus of proof and innocence and the whole concept of loitering with intent in the fashion in which it is wrtten into the Vagrancy Act. I should have thought that that held good in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said. We are not really at variance on the issue. We are all agreed that the problem of ethnic minorities is not a relevant consideration in Scotland on the operation of this law.
On the prosecution of suspected persons, the hon. Member for Garscadden was right to say, as I said when we considered this matter in Committee, that the practice in Scotland has been not only to use the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act but to concentrate on reputed thieves and to bring prosecutions only when reputed thieves are involved. Therefore, there has been a tendency not to bring a prosecution because an ordinary member of the public, who is not a reputed thief. acts in a suspicious way.

Mr. Dewar: It might help me if the Under-Secretary would explain in what


situations he thinks prosecutions should be brought in terms of known thieves loitering with intent which could not be covered by the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act which ultimately we hope to reform.

Mr. Rifkind: I shall come to that later. I am dealing with the existing practice. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, the existing practice has been for the vast majority of prosecutions to be brought under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, and not this provision. Also, concentration has been on known thieves, not ordinary members of the public who might be acting in a suspicious way. In both respects, the situation in Scotland has been significantly different from the situation south of the border.
I turn now to the question whether this provision should be repealed. Given that the operation of the law in Scotland has not led to any great sense of grievance, public outrage or controversy, it cannot be argued that there is any urgency for repealing this provision. If we were not to have an early opportunity to consider the whole issue not only of the Vagrancy Act but of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, this might be as good an opportunity as any for the House to come to a view on the operation of this provision in Scotland. There is nothing wrong in principle in that sense, but, as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) acknowledged, we have had the report of the working party on civic government, which covers a similar related area.
In the next few weeks we shall publish the draft Civic Government (Scotland) Bill as a White Paper. It will not be going through its legislative processes in the next few weeks. I am referring to the publication of the draft Bill, which will include provisions in this area. The Government hope that there will be early legislation on this matter. We would not be producing a draft Bill if that was not our intention. Therefore, we shall have a very early opportunity to come to a conclusion on this whole matter.

Mr. Millan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman shortly. These two issues are closely related and we do not have separate statistics.
I was asked how many prosecutions there have been under this provision. The two Acts are so intertwined that we cannot say which have been prosecutions under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act and which have been prosecutions under the equivalent of the Vagrancy Act. If the two are closely intertwined, and if the House has an early opportunity to reach a decision on the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, that will be the time to come to a decision on the closely related issue. To come to a decision on one issue now and to reach a decision on the other subject in a few months' time would be a pointless exercise and would be of no benefit.

Mr. Millan: As the draft Bill is to be published soon, the Minister must know what is in it. Does it contain a provision for the repeal of this measure in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Bill. He would not expect me to give a different reply, nor would he have given a different reply in the same circumstances. Within the next few weeks a draft Bill will be published. The House and all outside interests will have an opportunity to discuss it.
There is no great urgency in Scotland. Even in this debate, no hon. Member has suggested that there is any such urgency. The hon. Member for Barking simply used the argument that if we did this today we should promote her cause and the repeal of the measure in England and Wales. That may or may not be correct, but it cannot be a legitimate argument in relation to the merits of the provision as it affects Scotland.
The House will have an early opportunity to consider the whole issue. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue his new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

Division No. 423]
AYES
[8.56 pm


Adams, Allen
Flannery, Martin
Palmer, Arthur


Allaun, Frank
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Parry, Robert


Alton, David
Foster, Derek
Pavitt, Laurie


Anderson, Donald
Freud, Clement
Penhaligon, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce
Radice, Giles


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Gilbert, Rt Hn Dr John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Robertson, George


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Haynes, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Buchan, Norman
Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Hooley, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Campbell, Ian
Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Silverman, Julius


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Janner, Hon Greville
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Clark, David (South Shields)
John, Brynmor
Spearing, Nigel


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stoddart, David


Crowther, J. S.
Jones. Dan (Burnley)
Stott, Roger


Cryer, Bob
Kerr, Russell
Strang, Gavin


Cunlilffe, Lawrence
Kilfedder, James A.
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Lambie, David
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dalyell, Tarn
Litherland, Robert
Tilley, John


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Deakins, Eric
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dempsey, James
McElhone, Frank
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dewar, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Dixon, Donald
McKelvey, William
Welsh, Michael


Dobson, Frank
McNamara, Kevin
Wheeler, John


Dormand, Jack
McWilliam, John
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shetlles'n)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wigley, Dafydd


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Eadie, Alex
Maxton, John
Woodall, Alec


Eastham, Ken
Maynard, Miss Joan
Woolmer, Kenneth


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mikardo, Ian
Young, David (Bolton East)


Evans, John (Newton)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce



Ewing, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Faulds, Andrew
Morton, Barry
Mr. James Hamilton and


Field, Frank
O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Joseph Dean.

NOES


Alexander, Richard
Cockeram, Eric
Hawksley, Warren


Alison Michael
Colvin, Michael
Heddle, John


Ancram, Michael
Cope, John
Henderson, Barry


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Corrie, John
Hicks, Robert


Atkins Robert (Preston North)
Costain, A. P.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)
Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Elliott, Sir William
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Best, Keith
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lawrence, Ivan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Blackburn, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)


Bonsor Sir Nicholas
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveridge, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Richard


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas


Brinton, Tim
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McCrindle, Robert


Brittan Leon
Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Goodhew, Victor
McQuade, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gow, Ian
McQuarrie, Albert


Budgen, Nick
Gray, Hamish
Major, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Greenway, Harry
Mates, Michael


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mather, Carol


Carlisle John (Luton West)
Grist, Ian
Mawby, Ray


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, John Selwyn
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Churchill, W. S.
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Clark, Hon. Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Clegg, Walter
Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector

The House Divided: Ayes 122, Noes 163.

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mudd, David
Rost, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Murphy, Christopher
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Tripper, David


Myles, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Viggers, Peter


Neale, Garrard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waddington, David


Needham, Richard
Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, John


Nelson, Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Neubert, Michael
Speed, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Normanton, Tom
Speller, Tony
Wall, Patrick


Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Ward, John


Osborn, John
Sproat, lain
Warren, Kenneth


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Squire, Robin
Watson, John


Parris, Matthew
Stainton, Keith
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd&Stev'nage)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Stevens, Martin
Wickenden, Keith


Proctor, K. Harvey
Stewart, Allan (East Renfrewshire)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Rathbone, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wolfson, Mark


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rhodes James, Robert
Tebbit, Norman



Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Temple-Morris, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Mr. John MacGregor and


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thompson, Donald
Mr. Tony Newton.


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

SUSPECT OR POTENTIAL WITNESS MAY BE REQUIRED BY CONSTABLE TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move amendment No. 136 in page 1, line 7, leave out 'a constable has reasonable' and insert 'there are substantial'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 137, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'he' and insert 'a constable'.

No. 138, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'constable's'.

No. 139 in page 2, line 9, leave out 'his' and insert 'the'.

No. 140, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'he suspects' and insert 'it is suspected.'.

No. 141, page 2, line 13, leave out 'his' and insert 'the'.

No. 142, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'he suspects' and insert 'it is suspected.'.

No. 144, in clause 2, page 2, line 42, leave out 'a constable has reasonable' and insert 'there are substantial.'.

No. 147, in page 3, line 20, leave out 'his' and insert 'the'.

No. 148 in page 3, line 21, leave out 'he suspects' and insert 'it is suspected.'.

No. 157 in clause 4, page 5, line 24, leave out 'a constable has reasonable' and insert 'there are substantial.'.

Mr. Steel: This amendment and those selected with it have basically the same purpose. I raise this matter with a certain amount of trepidation, but I believe that we should try, so far as possible, to replace the subjective grounds set out in the Bill as drafted with more objective grounds giving the power of detention. The purpose of the amendment is to make the ground for stopping a person, so far as possible, objective—replacing the wide subjective power given by the words
a constable has reasonable grounds".
The subsequent amendments, mostly consequential to amendment No. 136, have been tabled with some diffidence because I am not certain that the amendment is watertight. I see that the Minister nods. That is always a bad sign. I am unhappy about the wording of the Bill as drafted. It creates far too wide a subjective power for an individual constable. The amendment is an attempt to raise the issue to see whether the Under-Secretary of State can give any assurance about how he sees the wording working in practice.

Mr. Rifkind: I welcome this opportunity to indicate Government thinking on this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the purpose of the amendment is to replace the reasonable grounds that a constable must have under the Bill's present provisions before he can detain a suspect with "substantial grounds".
There are two reasons why the Government cannot accept these amendments. First, they do not achieve the objective that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. He has sought to make


the provision slightly less subjective and more objective. However, ultimately, even with his proposed wording, it would be within the discretion of the constable to decide whether the grounds were sufficient to detain the suspect. Whether one calls it "reasonable" or "substantial", the matter is open to interpretation, and only the constable on the spot can so interpret.
However, there is a more substantial reason why the amendment is inappropriate. We are dealing here with the power of detention to be used when a police officer suspects a person who has committed an offence. I assume that by "substantial" grounds the right hon. Gentleman means that the officer must have hard evidence that makes him believe not that the suspect might be involved but that he has actually committed the offence. If a constable has hard grounds, it is time to arrest the person and charge him with the offence. In those circumstances there would be a formal arrest, followed by a charge, given that the evidence was already available to justify that course of action.
We are concerned with the situation before that stage has been reached, when the evidence available to the police officer leads him to believe that the person before him is a suspect. He may not have sufficient evidence to justify a formal arrest, because in Scotland a constable cannot arrest a person unless he is able to charge him at that time.
That is a major difference between Scots law and English law, and that is why the Government have always argued that these powers, while they may not be necessary in England, are unfortunately necessary in Scotland. In England a person can be arrested and the police can hold him for questioning for a considerable time—sometimes several days—before deciding whether a charge should be brought against that person. However, in Scotland the courts have always ruled that an arrest cannot take place unless the police are able, at that moment or shortly after, to bring a specific charge against the accused.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that his amendment would either be superfluous, because it would not change the circumstances, or, if it did have any effect, would have the

wrong effect. It would be exerciseable only when the police, with their present powers, sought to arrest and charge a person with a crime.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 23, leave out from ' who ' to end of line 30 and insert
'having been required—

(i) under that subsection to give his name and address; or
(ii) under subsection (2) above to remain with a constable, fails, without reasonable excuse, to do so '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Rifkind: Subsection (5) as drafted makes it an offence for a suspect or witness not to give his name and address when required to do so, or to give a false name and address. These amendments delete the alternative offence of giving a false name and address, as it is really superfluous. They are drafting amendments to delete unnecessary words. It is unnecessary to include the offence of giving a false name and address when it is already an offence under the clause for a suspect or witness to fail to give his name and address when required to do so The one obviously presumes the other and rather than have the confusion of two separate offences, we propose to alter the situation with the amendments.

Mr. Millan: I was rather puzzled by these amendments. I thought that the failure to give a name and address meant the failure of someone to give any name and address. However, the Minister, assures us that the one offence includes the other, so we must accept what he says. However, to the layman, the original wording made more sense.

Mr. Rifkind: That clause in its present form states that it is an offence for a person who is required to give his name and address to fail to do so without reasonable cause. If the person does not give a name and address, or gives a false one, that person clearly fails to give his name and address and therefore it seems unnecessary to have an additional alternative offence.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 33, leave out from 'who' to 'fails' in line 35 and insert:
'having been required under that subsection to give his name and address'.

No. 3, in page 2, line 35, leave out:
'or gives a false name and address'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 2

DETENTION AND QUESTIONING AT POLICE STATION

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move amendment No. 145, in page 3, line 7, after 'to' insert:
'a suitable place named by that person, or if no such place is named, to'.
The purpose of the amendment is to replace the requirement in the Bill that a person detained will be taken to a police station or other premises by giving the detained person the opportunity to name the place to which he should be taken. It is common ground, regardless of the merits of the argument, that the Bill extends the power of the police. It is reasonable that if a person is detained without charge and deprived of his liberty he should be able to nominate a suitable place for the police investigation to be conducted, particularly if the police are not to be presumed to wish to apply unreasonable pressure.
Obviously I do not propose a universal discretion. That is why the word "suitable" is in the amendment. Clearly, the home of a suspected accomplice would not be a suitable place if that might lead to the detainee avoiding apprehension. However, the detainee's home should be regarded as a suitable and reasonable place. I am in part motivated by the dictum of Lord Justice Cooper in Her Majesty's Advocate v. Chalmers 1954 in which he said that a police station was a sinister venue for the questioning of suspects. If that were true under the old law it is even more true under the proposed powers of detention. The amendment provides a suitable alternative.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The right hon. Gentleman proposes a wonderful concept. However, we must be clear that the power of detention, which is a restrictive power, has been exercised on what is in law a voluntary basis. I

cannot conceive of a situation in which a person who is to be detained will be able to select the place of his detention. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that a detainee should not be allowed to go to the home of an accomplice but should be allowed to go to his own home. Perhaps he might also be allowed to go to his own pub or club, or any place where his friends meet.
Who is to judge what is "suitable"? The assumption is that the choice should be that of the detainee. He is the person who, it is proposed, would be able to say that he will be detained in the Smoking Room rather than the Tea Room or the Chamber of the House of Commons. What is "suitable"? With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the concept is fatuous. We are interested in the concept of inquiry into a person who is suspected of committing a serious offence. It is a matter of inquiry.
The safeguards that we have built into the Bill are that there should be in the police station tape recording—when it comes—the ability to fingerprint, the recording of the time when the person arrives and leaves, and the check of other officers and independent persons. I cannot see that the amendment would give any benefit to the person who was detained. It might make a mockery of the whole investigation of justice, without any benefit.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move amendment No. 146, in page 3, line 14 at end insert
'and when a person has been detained under subsection (1) above for a period of six hours, he shall be informed immediately upon expiry of this period that his detention has been terminated.'.
I am fairly certain that this amendment, unlike my two previous amendments, should be pressed strongly. Its purpose is crystal-clear. It is to ensure that a detainee is aware that he is no longer obliged to remain in the police station, his period of detention under the measure having terminated. Without such mandatory provision, as the Bill is now drafted the police would easily be able to extend the period, albeit that it would then be termed "helping the police


with their inquiries", after six hours had expired, because the detainee could still be ignorant of his right to leave.
I have not suggested in the amendment any reduction in the six-hour period. That is a separate issue, which was debated at length in Committee. I do not approve of the six-hour period, but if we are to have it—and there is clearly a majority in the House to sustain that view—it is important that there should be a specific provision in the Bill that the detainee shall be informed that at the end of that period he is free to leave if he wishes.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have more sympathy with the concept behind this amendment than with that behind the right hon. Gentleman's two previous amendments. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is moving closer to reality.
Under subsection (4) (f),
the time of the person's departure from the police station
must be recorded. If the police wished to use anything that happened thereafter—and, indeed, probably anything that happened before—they would have to justify any detention after the expiry of the six-hour period and prove that it was voluntary.
As the police must release or arrest and charge at the expiry of the six-hour period, it seems to me strange that one should have to advise the person at that point, when in any event one must release him or fall foul of the law, which says that he is entitled to go.
If the right hon. Gentleman says "We cannot trust the police", the answer is that in that case we could not trust them to carry out his amendment any more than to comply with the Bill as it is proposed. Therefore, it is unnecessary to make the amendment, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw it.

Mr. Millan: I am not impressed by that reply. The clause contains much detail and a number of safeguards, but there is still considerable concern about many of the basic provisions.
I am attracted to the amendment. I do not think that it would damage the Bill. It is well drafted. The Solicitor-General for Scotland did not say that there was anything wrong with the drafting, and I urge him to reconsider his

attitude. We do not want unnecessary Divisions, and the amendment is a sensible provision which fits neatly with the rest of the clause. It would be an additional safeguard for detainees who may not be aware that they are free to go.

Mr. David Steel: The Solicitor-General for Scotland introduced an unfortunate note in his reply. I did not raise the question of trusting the police and I do not believe that it is the right concept to bring up in this debate. It is not a question of trusting or not trusting the police. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that the Bill proposes a major extension of police powers. Whether we agree with it or not, it is a major encroachment on individual liberty. It is right that the House should watch carefully the procedure that is being used.
It is obvious that the average citizen will not be as conversant with the law as is the average policeman. If we write the amendment into the Bill, a person will have to be informed after six hours that he is free to go. That would be an important safeguard.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I remind the House that subsection (2) provides:
Detention under subsection (1) above shall be terminated not more than six hours after it begins".
If it is not so terminated it will be a breach of the law. It is not sufficiently understood that persons will be in de facto detention in Scotland, not only for infinitely shorter periods than they are in England but for much shorter periods than they may presently be in Scotland under their misunderstanding of the law.
I am sympathetic to the concept of the amendment. I concede that a detainee may not know whether he has been in detention for two hours or 10 hours. However, a policeman will know, although his watch may have stopped. On balance, this is not a matter that we should argue about. It would be reasonable that a person should be advised that the six-hour period had ended and that if he intended to remain thereafter he was remaining voluntarily and not as a detainee, which is, perhaps, a position that few who have gone to a police station in Scotland have understood hitherto. I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 1, leave out subsections (5) and (6).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 149, in page 4, line 6, at end insert
and in any event, no answer given shall be admissible in evidence unless recorded by tape recorder, which recording shall be the only admissible evidence of any answer given. A copy of the tape recordings shall be made available to the detainee or his solicitor within seven days of a decision to institute criminal proceedings against the detained person.'.
No. 150, in page 4, leave out lines 7 to 19.
No. 151, in page 4, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert
'provided that in the event of a decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the person or on the conclusion of such proceedings otherwise than with a conviction or an order under Section 182 or 383 (absolute discharge) or 183 (i) or 384 (i) (probation) of the 1975 Act, all records of the prints and impressions so taken shall be delivered to the person or his solicitor within seven days of such an event.'.
No. 152, in page 4, line 21, leave out
'or by paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (5), above'.
No. 9, in page 4, line 27, at end add—
'(8) Any questions put to a person and any replies given by him while in detention in a police station detained under subsection (1) above shall not be admissible as evidence in any subsequent trial unless they have been tape-recorded or video taped and the said tape recording or video recording and a transcript thereof is lodged as a production in court.'.

Mr. Dewar: We now plunge into an extremely important group of amendments—one that I approach with a somewhat faint heart. Amendment No. 6 is a radical attack upon the principles underlying the clause. Amendment No. 9, which deals with the tape recording of extra-judicial confessions or statements made during the period of detention, is one of the fundamental safeguards laid down in the original report of the Thomson committee.
I say "with a faint heart" not because my position has in any way abated but because I recognise that these matters were debated extensively—and I use that word in its fullest sense—in Committee. Several forests in Scandinavia must have

been cut down to provide the paper on which the proceedings were recorded. In fairness to the House I shall be fairly brief in rehearsing the argument. I am tempted to delve into the ramifications of the admissibility of evidence, the tests applied and the cases of Hartley, Chalmers and the many others that we lovingly dissected during many a morning, afternoon, evening and night in Committee. But that would not make me popular, and it would not contribute to the debate on Report.
I think that I speak for one or two of my hon. Friends on the Opposition side of the House. Amendment No. 6 seeks to remove from the clause subsections (5) and (6). That would not destroy the right of a police constable to detain a person for a period of up to six hours under the terms of the clause. It would mean that when he took him to the police station he would not have the right to question him about the suspected offence, to search him in the way that he would be able to do following arrest, or to take fingerprints, palm prints or such other prints or impressions that, having regard to the circumstances, the constable might consider appropriate.
I freely concede that if the amendment were to succeed it might mean that few detentions would be made under the clause. Those who think that the clause is a splendid innovation, liberalising the law and making the work of the police in Britain more effective, will doubtless look "sidiewise"—to use a Scottish colloquialism—at the amendment. I do not take that somewhat hopeful view. The clause is a thoroughly dangerous innovation. With the aid of the few hon. Friends that I can gather I intend to divide the House on that issue in the not too distant fuure.
Put in its simplest terms, we object to the whole concept of detention as it is embodied in the clause. When I say "we", I refer to those who share my point of view, of whom there are many on the Labour side of the House. I suspect that there are a number of, at least, doubters on the Conservative side of the House. I look at no one in particular on that point. I am sure that, statistically, there must be a few men of good sense and liberal view scattered somewhere in the dark recesses of the Scottish Conservative Party.
It is a fundamental right of the citizen to be able to go about his business as he wishes and under his own control until such time as the police, because they have sufficient evidence, are in a position to effect an arrest and, subsequently, to charge him. The clause envisages that at a time when suspicion arises—which is a key part of the clause mechanism—but when there is not enough evidence to justify an arrest, the police should be able to "huckle" the suspect and take him to a police station for a period of up to six hours for the specific purpose of questioning him. We wish to remove that last part because we regard it as the most obnoxious and dangerous part of the proposal before the House.
It is a totally inescapable conclusion that the only purpose of taking someone to the police station with a view to questioning him about the offence is in the hope that the evidence which is lacking—the evidence which was not there and without which it was impossible to arrest and charge—will be made good. In other words, the point of the procedure—I do not think that there can be much argument about it—is the hope that the suspect will put himself in further jeopardy by making some sort of self-incriminating statement. That seems to me to be a very dangerous idea indeed.
I believe that citizens have a duty to help the police with their inquiries. If someone wishes to co-operate and go on a voluntary basis to the police station, I am thoroughly in favour of that being done—as long as all the parties are clear about the basis on which he is attending.
I also accept—it was one of the clearer things that the Solicitor-General said in the last debate—that there are occasions when people are ignorant of their rights and, perhaps in ignorance of those rights, attend at police stations. But the fact that there is that kind of misconception and that people are ignorant of their right not to co-operate—or ignorant of their right to leave once they have gone to a police station on a voluntary basis, or choose not to exercise that right—is not necessarily a good argument for abolishing that right.
We ought to go back to the law as we understand it. We ought not to import this dangerous idea that we should be able to take someone at a point of sus-

picion—but before there is sufficient evidence for arrest—for the purposes of interrogation. It is bad for the suspect, because it is putting him under pressure; it is also extremely bad for the police, because there will be the temptation to abuse the procedures.
I do not believe that it is very easy to envisage circumstances in which a man is taken at a point where the police believe that he has committed an offence and he sits for six hours in a police station giving nothing more than the legal equivalent of his name and number, and refusing to answer any questions. It is not to attack the police, and not to suggest that there is some sort of wicked conspiracy in the police force, to say that that is a situation that would try the patience of a saint. Even in my most optimistic moments I do not assume that all policemen are saints. It is a situation in which abuse is a possibility and where, even more importantly, the allegation of abuse is a possibility, and that is thoroughly bad for the police force.
Some of us were fortunate enough not only to sit through the Committee stage of the Bill but to read the speeches of the Solicitor-General in the Committee proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill in 1979—the Bill that was introduced by the Labour Government. The Solicitor-General very strongly shared that point of view at the time, when he said:
we want to be extremely careful, if we are giving powers to policemen to detain people and then to question them in the sanctity and seclusion of a police station".
He was thinking, I am sure—as the right hon. Memhber for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was a few minutes ago—about the views of Lord Cooper in Her Majesty's Advocate v. Chalmers.
I do not want to quote at length from that famous judgment, which has long been departed from as a matter of law. The test is now one of fairness, and the tripartite analysis of Lord Cooper has long been abandoned by our courts. But his social comments on that now famous "sinister venue"—the police station—and the difficulties of a position in which inevitably there will be no corroboration for the story or the version of events which may be advanced by the suspect who is being interrogated, have to be taken very seriously by the House.
It is right to say, as the Solicitor-General did, that
If there is this unfortunate and undesirable questioning of the credibility of the police with regard to written statements, we shall get it all the more under this procedure."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 30 January 1979; c. 145-7.]
The Solicitor-General was right to make the point. The police will be more at risk as the result of the introduction of these proposals.
Without going into the matter in any great depth, and giving only a short rehearsal of the arguments, the people who support the amendment are saying that in these circumstances we should remove the right of questioning and the right to take fingerprints, which seem to us always to be an invasion of individual liberty and unjustified at this stage of the proceedings, prior to an arrest being made. By doing so, we would then be underwriting essential rights for the individual within the law of Scotland, and also removing the police from a position of turmoil, pressure and difficulty into which they have been thrown by the ill-thought-out and authoritarian approach of this Administration.
I turn now to the important issue of tape recording. The Committee was familiar with the arguments, and I shall not go over them again now. Hon. Members will remember that an essentially integrated package was presented by Lord Thomson, one part of which proposed that there should be periods of detention of the sort that are envisaged in the Bill. That was linked to certain safeguards, of which by far the most interesting and important was that any statement obtained during the period of detention should not be admissible unless it had been tape recorded at the time that it was given.
We have a plethora of extravagant and eloquent quotations from the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he was in Opposition about the essential nature of that safeguard, and at that time he pressed amendments energetically. It is sad that we have now come full circle. The hon. and learned Member is now on the Government Benches. He is a Minister of the Crown, and he now proposes to go ahead with the detention clauses without including the essential safeguard of tape recording.
On Second Reading, the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) took the view that experience in England was depressing, and he abstained in protest. Although the Solicitor-General for Scotland and his colleagues are paying lip service to the idea of tape recording, they do not have any hard guarantees that there will be a limited gap, or no gap, between the introduction of the powers under the clause and the introduction of tape recordings in the police station.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend refers continually to tape recordings. The amendment also includes video tape recordings, which may be better than tape recordings.

Mr. Dewar: I concede that, and it may surprise some hon. Members to hear that I have been talking in shorthand, and not advancing all the arguments fully. Video tape recording is a proper alternative. But it is important that any evidence that is obtained during periods of detention will not be admissible unless a tape recording or video recording is available.
In January 1979 the Solicitor-General for Scotland, in his then Opposition incarnation, said that he was satisfied that the common law and the safeguards for the citizen in a police station would be considerably weakened by the parallel proposal. He said:
I am satisfied … of the necessity for our amendments, which introduce the tape recording of such statements"—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Commitee, 30 January 1979, c. 165.]
His arguments did not fall on deaf ears. We are satisfied that there is a need for such a proposal, and that is why we have tabled the necessary amendments today. If the Government are sincere in pushing ahead with their experiments in tape recording, and providing the necessary funds, obviously there is no hindrance to their plans in accepting the amendment. However, if the Government do not intend to push ahead, the amendment is necessary to ensure that they do so before they can put the remainder of the clause into effect.

I hope that we shall soon be able to vote on the amendments, both of which are important. I should like to see the


Government accept them. If they insist on being reluctant, I hope that the House will force the amendments on the Government. The amendments would greatly improve the clause. Amendment No. 6 would remove the principal dangers of abuse and administration and the principal circumstances in which friction between the police and the public may arise. Writing in the admissibility dependent on tape recording would pick up the safeguards that the Solicitor-General in previous debates has rightly argued are so essential.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the clause, which is an essential part of what the Bill is trying to do. It would be wrong to support wrecking amendments. However, amendment No. 9 has merit. In Committee I suggested that we should have longer periods of detention. If video recording is to be successful, and we mean what we say about protecting the innocent and giving the police the necessary tools for their job, it is not unrealistic to link periods of 12 or 24 hours of detention with video tape recording equipment. Many complaints about police abuse of individuals who are being interrogated are not based on fact and cannot be proved. We should seriously reconsider the Thomson proposals.
I am taking a close interest in the experiment at Tayside. The Tayside police cover my constituency. There is merit in using normal recording equipment, but even more merit in video equipment. A man being interviewed could make a noise, and shout "Stop attacking me." That would be recorded on tape, but video equipment would show whether he was being attacked. The police would welcome the use of video equipment. I have discussed the subject with police officers using the equipment on Tayside. Video recording would avoid the police being wrongfully accused, which damages the police image and their relations with the public.
I support the use of video equipment, but I should prefer to link it to longer periods of detention.

Mr. Maxton: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. Obviously my name springs readily to your lips, because today I have spoken more often than has my hon. Friend the

Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan).
I have one problem with these amendments, which were put down in my name. I do not like trying to improve what is bad law, or what will be bad law when it gets on to the statute book, and that is the problem here. We are trying to take out the more objectionable aspects of the power of detention, rather than get rid of it altogether, as many Members of the Opposition would wish. It was unfortunate that Mr. Speaker did not select the amendment designed to do that.
We are left with the problem of trying to improve what is an objectionable new police power. We do not believe that this power is necessary. The police already have wide powers of arrest in Scotland. It is not an essential improvement to the powers of the police. It is open to abuse. However, I accept that the amendments will go some way towards stopping the abuse, especially those on tape recordings.
The video tape recordings work both ways in terms of what the police are doing. It is not only a matter of the suspect being able to say "Stop it, you are hitting me". In Committee the Solicitor-General said that when that happened the police would say that the accusation on the tape recording was false. On a tape recording, as a man says "Stop it, you are hitting me" and the policeman hits him in the face, at the same time the policeman may say "This accusation is false". That can happen with a tape recording.
The amendments go some way towards stopping some of the abuse. However, there is no question but that even with the amendments the power of detention is open to abuse by a few policemen. I want to emphasise that. Because of our attack on these clauses the Opposition have been accused of attacking the police. We have, consistenly said this and I want to put it on record. I am not attacking the 95 per cent. of the police who do their job within the law and the proper rules. However, I am concerned about the 5 per cent.—perhaps the percentage is smaller—of the police who misuse their powers. Under the clause they will be able to use their powers to an even greater extent. What-


ever safeguards and amendments we incorporate in the clause, a few policemen will abuse their power.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten me on what number is represented by 5 per cent. of Scotland's police? It worries me terribly.

Mr. Maxton: I could not give the numbers. I said that the percentage might be smaller. Any Government supporter who claims that no policeman abuses his powers and gets away with it is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. There are policemen who abuse their powers. It need be only a small number. If one takes a station with 30 or 40 policemen operating in it, only one or two of them misusing their powers make for bad relations between them and the community and the whole station and the community. That is the Opposition's basic premise for opposing the power of detention under the clause.
This is not the way to solve the rising crime problem. It will make relations between the police and the community worse. The research evidence proves that. The police need the co-operation of the public, especially in the large working-class areas of the inner cities to solve a large number of crimes and bring down the crime level. The new powers given to the police in the Bill will destroy or damage the relationship between the police and the community in parts of my consituency.
I refer to the Castlemilk scheme and Drumchapel, in Glasgow. Those are large working-class areas with large-scale unemployment and a great deal of social deprivation. In those areas there is not the sort of co-operation between the police and the public that there should be, and the introduction of this power will make matters worse, not better. Youngsters in those areas will be harassed by the police. They will be picked up and detained for six hours under this new power and they will undoubtedly feel resentment. In the first instance some of the parents may not feel that resentment, but eventually that resentment will be felt by them as well and the limited co-operation with the police that exists at present will be destroyed.
These amendments are necessary to afford some safeguards under the clause, though my preference would be for the clause to be removed from the Bill. We should look at ways in which we can improve the relationship and the cooperation between the police and the community. That will enable us genuinely to tackle the problems.
My final point is that the Government are intent on introducing new powers for the police not only in this respect but in others. We must look at that in relation not just to the Bill, but to other aspects of Government policies. What appals us most is that at a time when the Government are introducing this kind of repressive legislation they are creating the seedbed of crime by creating increased unemployment. We have seen the evidence of that today in the appalling unemployment figures. We have seen it in increasing social deprivation and cuts in the education service. Those measures are likely to lead our youngsters into crime, yet, at the same time, the Government have introduced this repressive measure. That is what is most abhorrent to us, and that is why I shall vote for the amendments.

Mr. Buchan: It is no secret that many Opposition Members are bitterly opposed to the principle of the clause. In these amendments we seek to remove the most objectionable aspect of it.
The clause had the most extraordinary genesis. The argument in its favour is that since the police have been acting without legal authority the way to deal with that situation is to give legal authority to them. That is an extraordinary way of trying to improve our legal structure. If the police have been acting in this way without legal authority—that means illegally—the answer is to deal with that illegality, not to formalise it in a new law. That is my first point.
My second point is that those who have been most closely involved with the law, as defence solicitors in the courts, have been the strongest objectors to this measure. I cite the present Solicitor-General for Scotland, who, before he attained that office a year and a half ago, inveighed strongly against the infringement of the right to silence and rights in relation to liberty. Nobody inveighed


more strongly than he did before he took up his present office. Referring to this process, he said:
At this stage nobody has been charged with anything.
He was right.
One of our strongest objections to the kind of questioning dealt with in the clause is the danger and the weakness of the proposal because it formalises illegal administrative police procedures. We are now told they should be made legal without proper judicial safeguards. The Solicitor-General went on to say:
They do not know whether it is mobbing and rioting, murder, pick-pocketing, spitting in the street or what it is—they have just a general, vague view about something."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 29 April 1980; c. 173.]
It is on that basis that the Government are asking us to adopt sections of the clause which allow the police to put questions to a suspect. The Solicitor-General will remember the wise words of Lord Cooper, who said that in the eyes of the ordinary citizen the venue—that is, the police station—was a sinister one. Lord Cooper said:
'When he stands alone in such a place confronted by several police officers, usually some of high rank, the dice are loaded against him, especially as he knows that there is no one to corroborate him as to what exactly occurred during the interrogation, how it was conducted, and how long it lasted'."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 6 May 1980; c. 315.]
That is why, a year ago, the hon. and learned Gentleman, before he became Solicitor-General for Scotland, said:
I stress that it is important that a person should be warned at this very early stage that he need not give an explanation to a police officer".— [Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 23 January 1979; c. 38.]
It is true that under pressure from another place, as well as in Committee, the Government introduced subsection (7), which gives some kind of protection. But it leaves open—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Buchan: I was saying that subsection (7) gives some protection. Nevertheless, the accused, or rather the detainee—he has not yet been accused when the process of interrogation starts—is left in the police station without the normal paraphernalia of proper legal safeguard and, incidentally, redress.
The consequence of this provision was clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman before he bacame the Solicitor-General for Scotland and was still in business defending clients. He said:
But where a police officer, make allegations about explanations which a person subsequently denies, that does nothing for the cause of justice. And it does nothing for the reputation of the police or indeed, the interests of the public."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 23 January 1979; c. 38.]
Those were wise words. The Solicitor-General knew then, as we know now, that the complaints of denials of evidence given in that way will proliferate, and that will bring the law into discredit. It is strange how a man's wisdom will bring flies out of the window when he gets into office. The hon. and learned Gentleman had so much to give when he was in that mood. To throw away this wisdom for the sake of Solicitor-Generalship is a shoddy exchange, and it is a pity I was saying nice things about the hon. and learned Gentleman this morning because of something that he did which was valuable, and he has no doubt been informed about that. However, I shall try to restrain myself in that regard.
Besides the denting of law and order, there is the denting of the right to silence. The pressure on a man detained without a charge or accusation having been made considerably dents the rights to silence. It also begins to flaw the care with which we consider evidence in the courts. In other words, the admissibility of evidence—that which should be permitted in our accusatorial system which the Government are also trying to destroy in clause 6—is now brought into question and is severely denied by this process. The right to silence and the admissibility of evidence are dented.
I should like to quote from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who played such a notable role in leading on many of


these arguments in Committee. Referring to this kind of interrogation—this is before any formal charge has been made—he said:
I believe that either abuse will creep in or the very proper care that the court at present exercises will slip back and will allow in evidence that which at present we would not properly allow.
This is a preliminary stage leading, among other things, to clause 6, which formalises even further the whole question of inquisition before the trial proper starts.
We said that we would like to get rid of the entire clause. We fought bitterly to get rid of it, but we did not succeed. Therefore, we are confronted with trying to improve it. Clearly the most dangerous aspect concerns the four points that I mentioned regarding the permission of interrogation before accusation. That is the most dangerous aspect, and we wish to get rid of it by getting rid of subsections (5) and (6).
I hope that we shall vote on the amendment, because we should like to introduce a safeguard. Indeed, before the Solicitor-General for Scotland took office he told us that that was necessary. I do not wish to enter into the argument about tape recorders or video tapes. Everyone agrees that they are necessary. We have sought to prevent the clause being enacted before the non-accused—but accused—in a police station has the protection of a video tape or a tape recorder. We shall certainly support the amendment.
There is one person who should lead us into the Lobby on such issues, namely, the Solicitor-General for Scotland. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] We should have followed him so willingly; but, for a handful of wigs and gowns, he has left us. If Conservative Members value freedom, justice, liberty and consistency in the Solicitor-General for Scotland, they should join us in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Before the debate began I had not intended to intervene. However, I wish to make two brief points. I should point out to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) that, although no Liberal Member served on the Committee, the Liberal Party has had nearly all its amendments selected. I am disappointed that, although a group of its amendments is under discussion, no effort has been made to comment on amendments Nos. 149, 150, 151 and 152.
Amendment No. 151, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and the hon. Member for Inverness is important. It seeks to leave out lines 13 to 19, on page 4. Even at this late stage we should not feel ashamed to admit that the wording of the amendment is better than the original wording of the clause. It covers the possibility of a person being detained at a police station without any charge being made. At present, any records such as fingerprints merely have to be destroyed. The amendment would ensure that such records would be delivered either to the person who had been suspected or to that person's solicitor. It would also ensure that such material would be delivered within seven days of the termination of the interview at the police station. The Solicitor-General for Scotland should accept the amendment, because it provides a better safeguard than the present provision.
My second point refers to tape recording. A debate has developed about the use of video equipment during interviews at police stations. Experiments are being carried out at Falkirk and at Tayside. As the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said, those experiments do not involve video equipment. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments. I do not know whether the chief constable of Tayside, Mr. John Little, has retired. If not, I hope that he will enjoy a long and happy retirement with his wife and family when he does. He is a very good police officer. I wish his successor, the new chief constable from the Lothians and Border, Mr. Bob Sim, every success with the force at Tayside.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire indicated that he had discussed

with the police in Tayside the experiment now going on in Tayside and Falkirk. There seemed to be an indication by the police that they would prefer the video equipment rather than the tape recording equipment which they are using at present. Before this debate develops much further, the Government ought to give an indication whether there is a possibility of video equipment being made available. Perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland can indicate whether experiments using video equipment are likely to be carried out in other police force areas and whether the experiments now taking place in Falkirk and Tayside will continue with the existing tape recording equipment.
I rest my comments primarily on those two points. However, I place heavy emphasis on amendment No. 151. I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will consider it very seriously indeed.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I should like to reply in reverse order to the points that have been made. I am sure that the whole House would want to join in the good wishes which the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) gave to Mr. Little, chief constable of Tayside, and his family. I am sure that all of us wish him a happy retirement after a most distinguished career.
I turn first to amendment No. 151. Presumably one would deliver, say, fingerprints to the solicitor or to some other representative only because one did not trust the police to destroy them. However, if one did not trust the police to destroy them, why should they not photocopy them before delivery? Therefore, I do not believe that that would constitute any kind of safeguard. If one does not trust the police, I regret to say that there are almost no safeguards. If one says that such things should be handed over to the solicitor as proof, how does one prove that they were not first photocopied and retained? One cannot do so.

Mr. Harry Ewing: This is the second or third time in the last hour that the Solicitor-General for Scotland has used the phrase "If one does not trust the police". It is not a question of trusting or distrusting the police. I have absolute confidence in the police. It is a question


of giving a member of the public confidence in the system in respect of which the Government are now legislating. Everything that I have said on Second Reading, in Committee and today on Report has been designed to give the public confidence in the system which the Government will obviously put on the statute book.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If a person is not willing to accept an assurance that any record which has been taken will be destroyed on his release, I do not believe that delivery to his solicitor will represent a safeguard. It would be an added expense. If it were to be betrayed it would be infinitely more upsetting to any public concept of trust. Trust in the integrity of the police is a concept which is held, and ought to be held, throughout the House. I do not think that the provisions of amendment No. 151 would enlarge it. By suggesting distrust, I believe that they would tend to diminish it.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) that this amendment is not intended to cast any doubt on the reliability of the police. However, there is no sanction if such records are not destroyed. Secondly, there does not appear to be any way of proving that they have been destroyed. At least this amendment would have that effect. I suppose there is no answer to what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. There is no way of disproving if something is photocopied. It would nevertheless be an assurance to the public that action had specifically been taken.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I would say, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, having reminded myself of the terms of amendment No. 151, that there is no sanction or proof under that amendment that records have not been kept. To deliver to a solicitor in seven days something that can have been photocopied gives neither proof nor sanction. The one is as invalid as the other.
I want to deal with the question of video taping and tape recording. The experiments in Dundee and Falkirk are going well. We shall be making a report in November or December on the initial

situation. Few people have refused to be tape recorded. To introduce video recordings would delay any decision about recording as a whole. We should proceed on this basis. If it is found that video taping, although vastly expensive, is more satisfactory, we can develop in that direction. We should not, however, introduce anything at this stage to delay what was the wish of the last Government and is the wish of this Government that the recording should be proceeded with, and should be found to have a satisfactory future provided that no appalling difficulties stand it its way. None has so far been indicated.
As the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said, I have defended a large number of people. The unemployed, the deprived, the unfortunate and youngsters are often the victims of crime. When considering these rights, it should be remembered that they are more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators. We must remember that before the Bill started there was the investigation of crime.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) put forward the remarkable concept that until the police are in a position to make an arrest no one should have to be questioned. There would rarely be arrests if that had been the law of the land. That has never been the law of the land.
It is in the interests of all that there should be investigation into crime. It is important from the point of view of excluding people who may be suspected. There should be the right, for instance, for someone who may have been named by another person to be excluded through being asked questions or being fingerprinted. Nothing is more likely to exclude a person from an investigation and ensure his release than that the fingerprint on the weapon is proved not to be his. Equally, nothing is more likely to determine a person's release than the asking of questions that produce satisfactory answers and make it inevitable that the person can no longer be a suspect.
It is important that hon. Members should understand that this is a two-way concept. It works not only in the interests of the person who may be detained; it works in favour of the innocent person who is detained. None of us wants an innocent person to be detained


for longer than is necessary. Therefore, I believe that these amendments are misconceived. I believe that they would wreck the ordinary power of investigation. They would work against the interests of those who should be released. I invite the House to reject them.

Division No. 424]
AYES
[10.21 pm


Adams, Allen
Field, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Alton, David
Flannery, Martin
Morton, George


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
O'Neill, Martin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek
Palmer, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Gilbert, Rt Hn Dr John
Pavitt, Laurie


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Penhaligon, David


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Radice, Giles


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Haynes, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Buchan, Norman
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Richardson, Jo


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Home Robertson, John
Robertson, George


Campbell, Ian
Hooley, Frank
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hudson Davies, Gwllym Ednyled
Rowlands, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Clark, David (South Shields)
Janner, Hon Greville
Silverman, Julius


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Skinner, Dennis


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Soley, Clive


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spearing, Nigel


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Kerr, Russell
Stott, Roger


Dalyell, Tarn
Kilfedder, James A.
Strang, Gavin


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Litherland, Robert
Tilley, John


Dempsey, James
McCartney, Hugh
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Oewar, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Dixon, Donald
McElhone, Frank
Welsh, Michael


Dobson, Frank
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Dormand, Jack
McKelvey, William
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Dubs, Alfred
McNamara, Kevin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McWilliam, John
Woodall, Alec


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kilkdale)
Marshall, David (GI'sgow, Shettles'n)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Eastham, Ken
Maxton, John



Evans, John (Newton)
Maynard, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ewing, Harry
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. James Tinn and


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. Terry Davis.

NOES


Alexander, Richard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Alison, Michael
Clegg, Walter
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)


Ancram, Michael
Cockeram, Eric
Hampson, Dr Keith


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Colvin, Michael
Hannam, John


Atkins Robert (Preston North)
Cope, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)
Corrie, John
Hawksley, Warren


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Heddle, John


Bendall, Vivian
Cranborne, Viscount
Henderson, Barry


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Crouch, David
Hicks, Robert


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hordern, Peter


Best, Keith
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Elliott, Sir William
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Blackburn, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jessel, Toby


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairgrieve, Russell
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bradford, Rev. R.
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Bright, Graham
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawrence, Ivan


Brinton, Tim
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Brittan, Leon
Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Loveridge, John


Budgen, Nick
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Luce, Richard


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhew, Victor
Lyell, Nicholas


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gow, Ian
McCrindle, Robert


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gray, Hamish
MacGregor, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
McQuade, John


Churchill, W.S.
Grist, Ian
McQuarrie, Albert


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grylls, Michael
Major, John

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire): Disgraceful.

Question put. That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 159.

Marlow, Antony
Rathbone, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mates, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Mather, Carol
Rhodes James, Robert
Tebbit, Norman


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Donald


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Thornton, Malcolm


Monro, Hector
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Rost, Peter
Wakeham, John


Mudd, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Murphy, Christopher
St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Ward, John


Myles, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Warren, Kenneth


Neale, Gerrard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watson, John


Needham, Richard
Shersby, Michael
Wells, P. Bowen (Hert'rd&Stev'nage)


Nelson, Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wheeler, John


Neubert, Michael
Speed, Keith
Whitney, Raymond


Normanton, Tom
Speller, Tony
Wickenden, Keith


Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Sproat, lain
Wolfson, Mark


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Squire, Robin
Younger, Rt Hon George


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Stainton, Keith



Parris, Matthew
Stanbrook, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stevens, Martin
Mr. Tony Newton and


Pollock, Alexander
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Mr. David Waddington.


Proctor, K. Harvey

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move amendment No. 153, in page 4, line 27, at end insert—
'(8) Failure by any constable or police officer to follow or comply with requirements of this section may render inadmissible any evidence, answer or statement obtained or made during the period of detention.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this amendment it will be convenient to take amendment No. 156, in clause 3, page 5, line 23, at end insert—
'(5) Failure by any constable or police officer to comply with the requirements of this section shall render inadmissible any evidence, answer or statement obtained of made during the period of detention.'.

Mr. Johnston: It seems to us that it is an omission from this part of the Bill that, while a whole variety of fairly precise requirements are laid upon the police, and specific procedures that they must follow are set out, there appear to be no sanctions in the event that they do not follow the requirements.
The proposed new subsection is simply an attempt to provide some sanction by holding out the possibility that evidence obtained without adhering to the requirements in the Bill might render inadmissible and invalid evidence so obtained. I emphasise that it is not intended that the proposed provision should be something that accused persons might take advantage of by exploiting minor irregularities. That is why we use the discretionary word "may" rather than

the firmer word "shall" before "render inadmissible".
Amendment No. 156 deals basically with the same point in relation to clause 3.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) on this matter. Amendment No. 153 would add nothing to the present law. The hon. Gentleman will see from clause 2 (5) (a) that the present law on the admissibility of evidence is safeguarded. Nothing in the clause alters the power of a court to rule whether evidence is admissible or inadmissible, on the basis of our present practice, which is essentially the test of fairness. The first amendment would merely repeat something that is the common law and has massive case law to support it.
Amendment No. 156 would create an absolute situation. At present, the test of fairness would mean that even if a police officer did everything required of him it might be held that the evidence ought to be inadmissible. If one mistake rendered evidence inadmissible, one would presumably, by implication, render admissible something done by the book, regardless of the test of fairness. We cannot accept that.
The general law of the test of fairness has been a brave and excellent principle of the law of Scotland on admissibility and the hon. Gentleman can be assured that that test will continue to apply. The test of fairness, taking all the circumstances into account, will always be the course.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3

RIGHT TO HAVE SOMEONE INFORMED WHEN ARRESTED OR DETAINED

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 41, after 'or', insert
'except in the case of intimation to a solicitor'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 155, in page 5, line 7, at end insert
'(1A) The solicitor to whom intimation has been made in terms of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be entitled to immediate access to that person and to remain with them until the period of detention is terminated and shall be entitled to offer him advice.'.

Government amendment No. 11,

No. 12, in page 5, line 21, at end insert,
'and such parent or guardian or a solicitor acting on their behalf shall be given access to the said child as soon as he arrives at the police station or other premises where the said child is being detained.'.

Government amendment No. 13.

Mr. Ewing: It will be obvious that the amendment is an attempt to separate the person reasonably named by a detained person from the right of a detainee to have a solicitor informed of his or her detention. We are dealing with individuals detained in a police station under the clause who will have the right to have a solicitor informed of where they are detained. In addition, they will also have the right to have another person, reasonably named by them, informed.
We accept that in some instances there will be a delay in advising a person reasonably named, or a good reason, connected with the investigation that is under way, for the police not informing him.
We are trying to set aside the solicitor from that sort of qualification. We do not accept, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland should not accept, that there can be any case for a delay to occur before the solicitor is informed. We cannot see any grounds on which it will be necessary, in order to facilitate an investigation that is taking place, not to advise a solicitor. In all circumstances, a solicitor should be informed without delay. If possible—and we think that it is possible—a solicitor should be present

at the time of the investigation, again without delay.
Let me sum up my brief moving of amendment No. 10. It is an attempt to separate the right of a detained person to name a solicitor and one other person. If the Solicitor-General were to accept that minor but helpful amendment, it would put a clearer definition on clause 3 as it relates to clause 2.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I understand what the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) is trying to do. There is power under sections 19 and 305 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to make intimation to a solicitor. The question is whether there should be any right of delay in that intimation. The hon. Gentleman makes a distinction that suggests that the person named may be a tainted person, and named for the reason of his taint, whereas the solicitor would be taintless.
That is a generous concept, but it may not be accurate. The solicitor may represent the other co-accused. Therefore, to tell one's solicitor that one has been arrested may, with no blame on the solicitor, be a good way of also telling the co-accused. As Thomson suggested, it is important that intimation of the matter should not be communicated to any party, whether he be tainted or taintless, if it is thought that such intimation may not be in the interests of justice or may tip off somebody in a position to be tipped off.
It has been suggested that the solicitor should be allowed access during the period of detention without delay. I do not know what is meant by "delay". Six hours is a short time.

Mr. Canavan: That depends on the circumstances in which one is detained.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, may regard six hours as a long time. It is a short time. It may take a large part of that six hours for a solicitor to present himself. In certain circumstances, the whole purpose could be frustrated if that exercise was undertaken.
Government amendments Nos. 11 and 13 and amendment No. 12 arise out of matters discussed in Committee. We


have reconsidered the question of what rights and safeguards should apply to children detained or arrested. There should be a statutory right of access by a parent or guardian to a child during a period of detention. The nature and effect of that access must be determined by the police. There are many circumstances in which a child does not wish to see his parents, because of a hostile relationship. It is important that parents should be permitted access, but that it should not be to the prejudice of the child. There are circumstances in which it might be prejudicial to the child. We propose that, in all circumstances, such access should be available but that its form and extent should be determined according both to the interests of the child and to the interests of justice. There are many delicate domestic circumstances in which a child and the parents may be involved, such as there is parental disapproval of what has occurred. It is important that the relationship of the child and the parents should be safeguarded in these delicate circumstances in both directions. I feel that we have come to a conclusion which will be humane and will safeguard the interests of the child in all circumstances.

Mr. Buchan: I want to comment on Government amendment No. 13 and on our amendment No. 12. We are, of course, pleased that the Government have recognised the real human problem involved, but, once again, we express our surprise that not until Report has recognition been given to the importance not only of information being given to the parent but of the right of access by the parent.
I am concerned with only one thing in Government amendment No. 13, which has come some way to meet us. I refer particularly to the words in the proposed subsection (4)
essential for the furtherance of the investigation",
which might still make it difficult for the parents to have proper access to the child. I accept the qualifications of the word "may" in paragraph (a) and the word "may" in paragraph (b). These are perfectly legitimate qualifications, although in many ways it would have been simpler if the Minister accepted amend-

ment No. 12. Despite that, I recognise that the Government have moved in our direction and I welcome it.
I wonder whether the words
any restriction essential for the furtherance of the investigation
may be over-stretched in their significance by the police where there is a child in detention for whom they are finding something useful but something which perhaps may not be altogether in the interests of justice, truth or of the child.
Having said that, I give the Government amendment a qualified welcome. It is only proper that I should, since we pressed the matter very strongly on the Government. I am glad that they have responded to that extent.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I share the qualified welcome of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) to Government amendment No. 13. I also share his view that we should have been much happier if the Government had decided to accept our amendment No. 12.
I am still a little concerned—and I put up a marker here—that the Solicitor-General has seen fit to repeat what was said in Committee, that there might well be circumstances in which a child under the age of 16 asks that his parents be not informed of his detention. I hope that no encouragement will be given to police officers not to inform parents at the request of children who are under the age of 16. In such cases, provided that the parents have not been involved in the commission of the offence—I accept that that would create a different set of circumstances—I repeat most strongly that, whether or not the child under 16 wants his parents advised, the parents should be advised, because they have a responsibility for children under 16.
We ought not in any circumstances to create any loopholes whereby children can say to police, in the circumstances that we are talking about, "Please do not tell my mummy or daddy because I do not get on with them. We have an argument every second night about whether we should watch 'Dallas' or 'Coronation Street' on television and there is some tension between us."
The rule should be that the parents should be informed, whether the child wants them informed or not. I hope that


the Solicitor-General will emphasise that aspect.
I ask the Solicitor-General to make one point clear. Under clause 2, am I right in suggesting that an arrested person has the right to have a solicitor informed and to have a solicitor in attendance? A person is arrested because the police consider that they have sufficient evidence to do so, but it does not mean that the investigation is complete. Under the 1975 Act, does an arrested person have the right to have a solicitor informed? If so, why is the principle not extended to a detained person?
As the Solicitor-General will be aware, I am no great lover of the legal profession. I should not go to the stake for that profession. However, I do not accept that the profession is in such a state that the police have to decide whether a solicitor named by a detained person is tainted, to use the hon. and learned Gentleman's own word, or may loosely be connected with the investigation. The hon. and learned Gentleman is making heavy weather of the point. May we have clarification on the rights of an arrested person and a detained person?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Since a parent has the right of access, however controlled, information is bound to be given to all parents of a child's detention.
An arrested person has the right to see a solicitor. Under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act a person who is arrested must be charged. A person who is charged is then, so to speak, incommunicado so far as the police are concerned. A person in detention is in a completely different situation. He is not incommunicado, and the right to see a solicitor at that stage or any other is a matter for decision.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 5, line 20, leave out '(or guardian)'.

No. 13, in page 5, line 22, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
'; and the parent—

(a) in a case where there is reasonable cause to suspect that he has been involved in the alleged offence in respect of which the person has been arrested or detained, may; and
(b) in any other case shall,
be permitted access to the person.

(4) The nature and extent of any access permitted under subsection (3) above shall be subject to any restriction essential for the furtherance of the investigation or the well-being of the person.
(5) In subsection (3) above—

(a)'child' means a person under 16 years of age; and
(b)'parent' includes guardian.'—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Clause 4

SEARCH FOR OFFENSIVE WEAPONS

Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move amendment No. 158, in page 5, line 26, leave out ' has committed or.'.
The basic contention is that the words "has committed or" are superfluous. The offence is carrying an offensive weapon. It would therefore appear that it would not affect the consequence or meaning of the Bill if the words were deleted.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has argued that the words are superfluous, and he has suggested that the offence is carrying an offensive weapon. That is not the offence. The offence is carrying an offensive weapon in a public place. If the person has moved from a public place to a private place he has ceased to commit an offence. If, however, a police officer is in a private place with permission, he has permission to search that person. If he finds a knife and there is evidence that that person had that knife on him before he entered the private place, that would be sufficient evidence that he had been carrying that weapon in a public place and therefore had committed an offence. To cover those circumstances it is necessary that the words "has committed or" should appear in the clause.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 5, line 30, at end insert
'or at the option of the person to be searched, the constable may take the person to the police station where he may be detained and searched in accordance with section 2 (4) above.'.
The amendment seeks to reduce some of the aggravation which might, not unnaturally, arise when the police have power to search persons for weapons.
This has been one of the more controversial clauses in the Bill. It has a history. This provision was introduced in the 1979 Bill in a different form on the casting vote of the then Chairman of the Committee—a precedent which, to my knowledge, has not been followed. The clause provides:
Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any person is carrying an offensive weapon and has committed or is committing an offence under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 … the constable may search that person without warrant, and detain him for such time as is reasonably required to permit the search to be carried out".
When the matter was discussed a year ago, I voted for an amendment which would allow a search to take place in those circumstances because I reckoned that it would be advantageous, but I made it clear that I had an amendment on the Order Paper which would seek to change the formula under which this arrangement for searching for weapons was to be carried out. Basically, the proposition was that power should be given to a police constable to carry out a search for a weapon if there were reasonable grounds, but that an option should be given to the person being detained for the search to be carried out not in the street or in a dance hall or place which might be a cause of aggravation, but in the police office. I shall develop that point later.
One of the immediate advantages of the amendment is the prevention of indiscriminate searching. Obviously it would be almost impossible to search a large number of people in a dance hall where an offence had been committed and it was suspected that the weapon was in the possession of one of 20 or 30 people. Such an incident might be covered by the word "reasonable". But if the persons to be searched had the right to be searched in the police office, the duty inspector might take a fairly rigorous view of the number of people being brought in for that purpose. The amendment seeks to strengthen the word "reasonable". The police constable would have to be pretty certain that a person had a weapon in his possession if the option to be searched in the police station were to be accepted.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland will probably recall that in Committee on the 1979 Bill I made two particular points. The first was that the search for an offensive weapon should be conducted under the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act. That was not in the then formula. I am pleased that the Prevention of Crime Act has been taken as the criterion in this instance because the law in that respect has been settled for a considerable time.
But there still remains the second proposition. I understood at the time that the hon. and learned Gentleman had some sympathy with the concept that the search could take place in the police office if the accused made that request. There are several advantages to that. It may be preferable for the search to be conducted at a police office rather than at the place where the person was detained. A search would cause aggravation, and the suspected person might wish to exercise such a right for personal reasons. I can think of no reason why that right should not be written into the statute book.

11 pm

When, for example, an assault takes place in a dance hall and someone has been injured, it is not unusual for the weapon to be passed on to a female accomplice. If no policewoman is available, a search may involve difficulties. Embarrassment may be caused. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask that the accused should be allowed to state that he would like the search to take place within the privacy of a police office. If an offensive weapon is suspected, the right of search will remain.

The amendment would deal with a danger that exists in many urban areas where weapons are carried and people are wounded. In addition, the Government's position in relation to the new power would not be diminished. The amendment would help to prevent aggression being shown towards the police if the latter extended their practices beyond the frontiers of the clause. If the accused had the right to be searched in a police office, a more senior police officer would be involved and aggravation could be diverted.

One argument against giving the police this new power of search is that it could


cause aggravation. It might result in a deterioration in police public relations. All hon. Members would regret that. The amendment would strengthen the context in which the new powers were used. It would give an additional civic right to the suspected person. It would also help the police, as it would remove any ground for aggravation. I therefore strongly commend it to the Government.

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that on many occasions it would be reasonable, if the suspect so wished, for a search for an offensive weapon to be carried out in a private place. I have no doubt that, on the whole, the police are only too happy to accede to such a request. The question is whether there should be a statutory obligation to do so.
There is an inevitable and significant defect in the hon. Gentleman's amendment. He suggested that, if the suspect so chose, the option of using the powers of detention should be available. He suggested that instead of searching the suspect the police should be able to detain him and search him in accordance with the detention provisions. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the detention powers have been clarified and that under the Bill the timing of detention will start from the moment that the suspect is detained in the street. From that moment, the police will have the power to search that person, because he would be a detainee. Therefore, the powers of search would be available, even if the person had not arrived at the police station. For that technical reason, the amendment would not necessarily achieve the desired effect.
There will always be cases—a small proportion, it is to be hoped—in which the need for the police to ascertain whether the individual is carrying an offensive weapon must be exercised right away.
Let us imagine that the police have been called to the scene of an incident—perhaps there has been some violence and a person has been injured—and it is suspected that an individual may be carrying an offensive weapon. It might be frustrating to the police if, before they could check whether the individual that they suspected was the person carrying the weapon, they first had to take him, if he so chose, to a police station, which might

be some distance away, particularly in the rural areas. That would thereby jeopardise any further inquiries which the police might make.
If, when they take that person to the police station, they find that their suspicion is justified and that he is the person with the weapon, no harm is done. However, if they found that they were mistaken—and it might have taken them 40 minutes to carry out that exercise—they could be frustrated in the other alternative inquiries that they would have made had they been able to confirm that evidence right away. That sort of emergency situation could arise, and surely the police would be acting reasonably if they wished to exercise the right of search at the first available opportunity.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I did not serve on the Committee, and I cannot comment with any accuracy on what happened there. However, I understood that the Minister had given an assurance that there would be no form of indiscriminate searching. If one takes the Minister's example, it would mean that the suspicion of the police had crystallised on one person and that they felt it was reasonable to exercise their powers under clause 4. However, if they discovered that that was not the person, they would be entitled to search someone else. If one follows the Minister's example, one may find—perhaps in practical terms by extension over a period of time—that the police are able to work their way through two, three, four, five or six people, at which stage the bridge between crystallising of suspicion for the purposes of search and indiscriminate search is crossed.

Mr. Rifkind: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I do not think that he realises the situation which might arise.
Let us assume that the police have been called to a particularly nasty incident in which someone has been injured. Let us assume that they have been given information that person X has been seen with a weapon. They would then have reasonable cause to believe that person X is carrying an offensive weapon. It may be. unknown to them, that that information is false. It may even be deliberately misleading. If, however, they have been given it, and have received it in good faith, it will obviously be in the public interest to search person X right away. If they find


the weapon, that is excellent. If not, they can carry out further inquiries. The police may not be entitled to search anyone else, and they may not have reason to believe that any other specific individual is carrying the weapon, but they can immediately start other inquiries which may lead to evidence showing who is responsible. If, however, simply by person X so choosing, the police must go to a police station which is some distance away, and if some time has elapsed, they will have been frustrated in the other inquiries which they may have been able to make but for that requirement.
I am not suggesting that that will happen in a majority of cases, but if the amendment were accepted it would place a statutory obligation on the police which would cover even those cases. That would clearly be against the public interest, because legitimate further inquiries could be frustrated. For example, in the rural areas there may be only one police officer making the inquiry. If he is required to take the suspect to the station before he can search him, by definition he will be prevented from carrying out alternative inquiries if at the end of the day the suspect was found not to be carrying a weapon and if the police officer's information was found to be incorrect. There are other possible examples, but that is the sort of problem which might arise.
Therefore, there are two reasons why I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not insist upon his amendment. The first is that even if the amendment were accepted it would not achieve its desired effect, because the power of detention, which is the alternative that the hon. Gentleman suggests, gives the police powers of search from the earliest moment. Secondly, for the reasons that I have indicated, there would be risk of legitimate frustration of a proper police inquiry. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish that to happen, but it could arise as a result of his proposal.

Mr. Millan: The Minister knows that the Opposition object in principle to clause 4. I do not want to discuss that matter at this time, but I took the view on Second Reading—I was not a member of the Committee and did not hear the detailed discussion—that the new powers of detention made the clause unnecessary. In particular circumstances, where the

is reasonable cause for suspicion, the detention procedure under clause 2 should be followed rather than search under clause 4. For that reason, at first sight I was attracted to the amendment.
There are, however, some difficulties about the amendment. I am not sure that if the amendment were accepted in the terms in which it appears on the Amendment Paper it would necessarily lead to a satisfactory outcome from the point of view of the person who exercised his option. I am not clear how one exercises an option unless one is told that one can exercise it. This raises practical difficulties. I would also be apprehensive following exercise of the option that, unless the circumstances were clearly laid down, a person, once taken to the station, might find himself there for longer than was necessary to be searched for an offensive weapon. He might find that the other provisions of the clause, allowing for six hours' detention, would bite.
Under the strict terms of the clause, that should not happen. The clause should ensure the release of a person taken to the station, searched immediately and found not to possess an offensive weapon. I have a suspicion that, in the practical circumstances of the case, there might be resentment that the person had exercised his option. I fear that he might find himself detained for even longer than the six hours.
I am not sure that, at the end of the day, one can eliminate the mischief of clause 4 by this kind of provision. I have to say regretfully that there are good reasons for not pressing the amendment to a Division. I do not think that the opportunity will arise at this late stage, because amendment No. 14 has not been selected for Division, to get clause 4 eliminated. In those circumstances, I could not ask my hon. Friends to support the amendment if it is taken further.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: There is clearly a technical flaw in the amendment in its reference to clause 2 (4) and the consequences that might occur. I accept that part of the Minister's answer. I have some doubts about the way the clause is framed. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) indicated that there could be resentment on the part of the police if a person were


to exercise the right given by statute. It would not surprise me if that happened in this case and in relation to many other statutory rights that are exercised.
One of the problems of the legislation is that it has proceeded partly on the basis of informal police practice which has built up over a period affecting the rights of the citizen. The Bill seeks to make permanent and legitimate some of the practices. There are good reasons following waves of violence and assaults, why the power of search should be given. Equally, one has to accept that there could be danger to communal relations if the search were carried out on a wider basis than was perhaps envisaged by the Minister in Committee and perhaps in relation to the example that he has given.
I did not regard as effective the Minister's answer relating to the inquiries that the police would make. It is not a particularly good example of the word "reasonable" if the police are entitled, virtually on hearsay, and perhaps even on anonymous information, to stop someone and search him on the ground that he is suspected of carrying a weapon. I should have thought that in the circumsances of an assault, a breach of the peace or mobbing and rioting, the police, having arrived on the scene, would make some other inquiries before their suspicions crystallised. In this context, it seems that if some restriction were put on the police, by way of the

example that I mentioned of the statutory right to be searched in the police office with a senior officer present, there would be advantage to all concerned.

However, I must accept that clarification of the powers of detention would give the police additional powers, and to that extent part of my amendment is invalidated. But, in my view, the argument behind the amendment is not invalidated. I suppose that, as the Bill must go back to the House of Lords, there is the slightest chance that there may be some change made there. If that does not happen, it would not surprise me if, in future, the House of Commons had to return to the question of police powers in relation to search and detention because consequences of an informal nature will flow from the powers which are given and which, in time, will form a new police practice which may go well beyond what was envisaged by the House.

Against the background of the Minister's remarks, some of which I must accept, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered to morrow.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to move.
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.
The hour is late but, in spite of that, I know that the House will expect me, in the customary way, to review the security situation in Northern Ireland in more detail than I am able to at Question Time every month and, of course, to give the Government's reasons for inviting the House to renew certain powers in the Act for a further six months.
Criminal violence of a terrorist nature continues in Northern Ireland and, although the overall level has diminished slightly this year, it remains the case that the terrorists, chiefly the Provisional IRA, have both the desire and the capacity to threaten peace and democracy. Over the last six months Belfast and the areas close to the border with the Republic have borne the brunt and policemen and soldiers, Regular and part-time, have generally been the targets. There have also been some indications of a resumption of inter-sectarian assassinations, an activity which we must not ignore but which, like all acts of terrorism, I utterly and wholeheartedly condemn, whatever the twisted motives of the perpetrators may be.
In sum, 44 people died in the first six months of this year, including a number who apparently had close links with terrorist gangs. The corresponding figure for the last six months of last year was 68. The number of bomb attacks was also slightly lower. This, as I say, represents an improvement, but let there be no misunderstanding—one person killed by terrorists would be one too many. The Government fully understand the anxieties of the people of Northern Ireland and share their longing to live their lives and to go about their daily business free from fear.
The Government's policy for the elimination of terrorism remains the restoration of normal policing throughout Northern Ireland and the arrest, preferring of charges, and conviction, on proven evidence, by the courts of those who

commit criminal acts. This is slow and painstaking but I am sure that it is right. The terrorist's objective—and only objective—is to destroy the democratic and legal fabric of our society, built up to protect the citizen while guaranteeing him his rights and freedoms. If we step outside the rule of law ourselves we are helping him to gain his objective. I believe that what is being achieved by using the law shows that we are on the right course.
So far this year 15 people have been convicted of murder or attempted murder and 348 of other terrorist crimes. In addition, 38 people have been charged with murder and 28 with attempted murder. A total of 228 other people have been charged with terrorist-type crimes. This shows the measure of success of the policy which we are pursuing.
The demands which are daily made on the skill and fortitude of both the RUC and the Army shine through all that I have so far said. I want again to pay tribute to their courage, dedication and patience. I must add a particular word of admiration for the men and women who give up much of their spare time to serve in the RUC (Reserve) and the UDR. Their contribution to security, often at considerable personal risk, is a vital part of our total effort.
The terrorist cause is prosecuted today not only against the security forces and the community at large; it is carried on by those now serving sentences for terrorist crimes in the prisons. The so-called "protest" campaign is cynically manipulated by the terrorist leadership as part of its propaganda drive. In this context, I welcome the recent decision by the European Commission of Human Rights, which declared inadmissible the complaints of four protesting prisoners that they had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. Equally important, it has rejected the claim that there is any right to special category status. It has explicitly realised that conditions in the prison are self-inflicted and can be improved immediately if the prisoners want.
We shall continue to apply the same prison regime without discrimination to all prisoners, whatever the supposed motives for their crime. We shall continue to discharge our duty to safeguard their health and welfare.
I must pay tribute to the prison governors and officers in this work. They have carried out their duties with fairness and humanity, against a background of murderous terrorist attacks. Though unarmed and not part of the security forces, 19 officers have been murdered in cold blood in the last five years and more attacked only recently. The service has also borne the brunt of a propaganda campaign of despicable mendacity.
I have described the guiding strands in our efforts to combat terrorism. Cooperation from the Republic of Ireland is no less important. I have been reassured in recent meetings that Irish Ministers recognise our joint interest in co-operating to frustrate the activities of those determined to destroy the State, both north and south of the border. The co-operation of the RUC and Garda is paying increasing dividends, as, for example, in the latter's recent discoveries of arms and explosives. We have stressed to the Taoiseach and his Ministers the importance that we attach to the effective use of extra-territorial legislation. It is good news that three men have now been charged in the Republic under this legislation in connection with the murder of an ex-UDR man in the North.
I have given the background to the draft order now before the House. I receive a wealth of advice about the emergency provisions legislation, so I have every reason for considering thoroughly what I should recommend to the House every six months. The Peace People, for instance, have sincerely attempted to analyse the effects of the Act, thought I cannot go nearly all the way with them. Outstandingly, I have had the benefit of advice from the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I take this opportunity of paying public tribute to its outgoing chairman, Lord Plant. I am sure that his successor, Mr. David Bleakley, will continue the commission's good work.
The commission's ultimate objectives are the same as mine, even though we differ as to means. It has again suggested that part of section 2 of the Act should be dropped. This provides that before granting bail in a terrorist case a judge must be satisfied on certain points. They are that the accused will comply with his bail conditions, that he will not interfere

with witnesses, and that he will not commit any offence while on bail.
The commission takes the view that these provisions breach the principle that a man should be treated as innocent until proved guilty. I have looked closely at this again. I acknowledge that the section can be represented as reversing the normal onus of proof. It is unusual, and was framed to meet an unusual situation—unusual in two ways. First, the terrorist threat itself; secondly, the previous practice of the Northern Ireland courts. The Diplock committee, which recommended the present law, pointed out that the courts in Northern Ireland did not treat the likelihood that if at liberty the accused would continue to commit other offences as a ground for refusal of bail. Thus, bail was granted in Northern Ireland more freely than at that time in England, and this even in serious terrorist cases.
I have taken into consideration two practical points. First, not renewing the section must be assumed to lead back to something like the pre-legislation practice described by Diplock. Secondly, the practice of the courts is not what a strict reading of section 2 might lead one to suppose. The whole tradition of Northern Ireland courts leads them to be highly conscious of the rights of the individual. Bail is in fact granted in a substantial number of scheduled offence cases. In the year up to the end of March 626 out of 1,405 applications, which is 45 per cent., were granted; and in the previous year 627 out of 1,601, which is 39 per cent. I therefore conclude that the proper course is to renew section 2. But I have acknowledged, and I do again, that it is an unusual provision. If we were to embark on amending legislation in future, I should be prepared to consider whether the section could be improved by drafting. But, as I have stressed, I should be guided by the belief that the current practice of the courts is satisfactory and that change would carry the risk of affecting it adversely.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I understand—I am not a legal man, but I have had discussions with legal people in the Six Counties—that judges do not use section 2. I am given to understand that it is often ignored. Is


that not a practical reason for considering constructively the repeal of the section?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. There is a case for rewording section 2. I have admitted that already. I do not think that there is a case for dropping it altogether, because of the possibility that we might return to the position that I have described before the emergency arose. We can consider rewording it, but we are not considering that tonight. We are considering whether to renew it or to drop it. It is my judgment that we must keep it for the time being. If amending legislation is produced, we shall consider how best we can deal with it.
Nor do I propose any change as regards section 8, which deals with the admissibility of statements made to the police. This section provides that a statement should be excluded where there is prima facie evidence that an accused was subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment in order to induce him to make the statement. The commission has recommended that the section be amended so that the use or threat of violence would have the same effect of excluding the statement. It acknowledges that the courts interpret this section widely, and that the RUC observes higher standards than a strict interpretation of the section dictates. The RUC's conditions of interview, which are today based on the strict and detailed recommendations of the Bennett report, act as the most effective safeguard of the rights of a suspect. The intentions of the commission could be satisfied only by amending the Act. While I understand its concern, I should be more impressed with the need for amendment if I were not clear that the courts are in practice already interpreting the section—whatever its precise language—in very much the sense that the commission wishes.
I have looked again at the other temporary provisions in the Act, and especially at those granting special powers of arrest, which the commission considered to be insufficiently objective. I appreciate its concern; this issue plays an important part in the community's attitude to the emergency. I shall say two things about it. First, I am certain that the manner in which the

security forces go about the seeking out of terrorists is responsible, objective and in no way just according to mere whim. Secondly, the nature of terrorism is such that the security forces may often not be in a position to demonstrate publicly that their suspicion of terrorism is soundly based; but one should not conclude from this that it is not reasonable. We must not forget, of course, that these powers of arrest are strictly limited in time; in the case of the police the limit is 72 hours, and for the Army four hours.
I turn now to section 12 which, together with schedule 1, gives the Secretary of State power to detain indefinitely and without trial persons suspected of being terrorists. The House will see that I am not asking for these powers to be renewed on this occasion and will want an explanation why we are taking this step.
I said earlier that the Government are committed to their policy of overcoming terrorism by using, so far as possible, the normal processes of the law. Detention without trial is very definitely not a
normal process of the law
in democratic countries and indeed its operation offends a fundamental human freedom, far more. I believe, than do any of the other provisions of this Act. This House has always been, and, pray God, always will be, most reluctant to give to any Minister of the Crown such a wide power and would do so only if it were convinced that it was essential for the survival of the State and of the people who make up the State that he should have it and, furthermore, that the State and its people would be better protected if he did have it. The Minister would have to argue that case and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at this moment I am not prepared to argue it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: If, tonight, we drop the ability to detain without trial and if, at some time in the future, the Minister wanted to reintroduce it, how lengthy would that process be?

Mr. Atkins: May I ask my hon. Friend to possess himself in patience? A little later in my speech I come to precisely that point.
I have sought to show that over the last few months there have been modest


changes for the better in the security situation in Northern Ireland. The House knows that over the last five or six years there has been a substantial improvement. Many hon. Members will remember that the levels of violence which had to be reported from this Dispatch Box in those days were many times greater than they are now—and that, incidentally, was at a time when people were being detained without trial under the Act. Since those days much has happened.
The policy of successive Governments has been showing results, due in great measure to the growth in strength, experience and efficiency of the RUC and to the ever-increasing skill of the Army. The community has responded to this policy, because it approves of it and sees that it works, with the result that the terrorists are becoming more and more isolated.
I sincerely believe that the reintroduction of detention without trial at this moment would make matters worse, not better. I said "at this moment" deliberately. I have reported to the House my view that matters are slowly improving. But we must not blind ourselves to the possibility that something might happen that would make them take a turn very much for the worse and that I might want to use the power of detention. This could still be done, but with one important proviso, which does not exist today.
Section 12 will remain on the statute book—indeed, it would need amending primary legislation to take it off—and section 33 provides that section 12 can be reactivated by order. Furthermore, section 32 provides that under the "urgent" procedure that order can become operative immediately, with parliamentary approval for its continuance being required within 40 sitting days. So the difference—the proviso that I mentioned—is that, whereas today I can detain people without having to come near Parliament, in future, if today's motion is passed, I shall have to seek Parliament's approval to detain people without trial. That seems to me a proper position for the Secretary of State to be in, and I hope that the House will agree that it is.
Other parts of the Act bear on the liberty of the citizen, and it is not, let me assure the House, without some reluctance that I ask for the renewal of the remainder. These powers are not normal

in a democracy but they remain necessary to bring to justice terrorists who pay no heed to democracy. The past six months have shown that while we continue to make inroads into the terrorists' resources, to hamper their activities and to obstruct theoir goals we still have a good way to go before the normal level of law and order is restored throughout Northern Ireland. Let there be no mistake. We will persevere in the course that we have set ourselves, and it is my firm belief that we shall gain our objective, which is the suppression of terrorism, but we need the powers contained in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act to enable us to succeed. Therefore, I ask the House to approve the motion.

Mr. Brynmor John: As the Secretary of State said, this is a short debate and so, although I am opening for the Opposition, we do not intend to wind up the debate.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, this debate has traditionally concentrated on security aspects of the Province, and I immediately express sympathy for all the victims of violence during the past year, be they civilian, Army, police or prison warders.
I do not intend to make security the theme of the debate. I intend to stick to the subject of the debate, which is whether we renew the legal framework which we had designed to deal with the emergency, for what we are doing tonight is something that we should not do either lightly or casually, namely, re-enacting an exceptional law. It should be done only with the closest parliamentary scrutiny and with reluctance because of its exceptional nature. We must ask ourselves whether exceptional law is needed to deal with the situation, and I reluctantly conclude that it is, which is why I believe that the House should renew these powers tonight.
There are, I suppose, three groups in the House who are looking at these problems. First, there are those who will re-enact the law without many qualms, seeing the result of defeating terrorism as justifying the means—almost any means.
Secondly, there are those to whom the Act is so repugnant that, whatever advice


is given as to the necessity for it, they will wish to mark their disapproval of it. A number of my hon Friends have done so in the past, and I have no doubt that they will do so on this occasion.
Thirdly, there are many people who will not want to oppose the renewal of the provisions but who will be very concerned to see that those provisions in the Act are always the minimum necessary for tackling the emergency and are in being for the shortest possible period. Among them I number myself. I have made it quite clear in the past that what we should be aiming for always in these renewal debates is to see how near to normality we can restore the criminal law in Northern Ireland. To enable those who are anxious about the Act to judge how we can do that, we should have at our disposal as much information as possible about the workings of the Act, in order for there to be a sensible debate on it. It would be a sad day for the House if we were to regard such debates as a mere ritual.
That being so, I express my extreme disappointment that once again the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has not been made available to hon. Members. I tried to forestall this difficulty by asking at Question Time on 8 May this year that the results of the commission's look into the Act should be made available to us in the most suitable form. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr Alison), said then:
Yes, I shall consider most sympathetically the hon. Gentleman's request, and I shall seek to meet it."—[Official Report, 8 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 516.]
Unfortunately, despite those blandishments, nothing has been forthcoming. Perhaps more surprisingly, nor has any explanation been given to me or the House of why it was not done. This is most disappointing. The continuing absence of authoritative public analysis leads me to a conclusion that I shall develop later.
Before turning to that, let me say how glad I am to see that the Government have responded to the point that I made on behalf of the Opposition in the two previous debates, which was to adopt the commission's suggestion that the Secretary of State's power to detain without

trial, which is contained in section 12 and schedule 1 of the Act, be allowed to lapse. I believe that this is the right course, and I welcome the Government's response.
For what else the commission may have tendered by way of advice we must rely on newspapers. I always find it somewhat ironic that newspapers seem to be able to get hold of documents which are always denied to Members of Parliament. From the newspaper reports of the commission's report to the Secretary of State we can identify certain main areas of concern. The first is the lack of jury trial and the nature of the Diplock courts. I think that what the commission is saying is this: granted that that may have been the way in which the matter was tackled at first, when the Act was fashioned, is it any longer as relevant to the Northern Ireland of 1980, and to the legal situation, as it was then?
The second area of concern is section 2 (2) on bail. I have pointed out that this reverses the normal burden of proof regarding bail and puts upon the accused the duty of satisfying the court that he should be granted bail.
The Secretary of State has made great play of the suggestion that if we were to change that provision we should confuse the courts. But all that we should need to do for Northern Ireland is to put in the Act a provision such as is already contained in the Bail Act—a presumption that an accused person is entitled to bail unless the court is satisfied that he will abscond, interfere with witnesses, or commit other offences whilst on bail. I think that it is merely a reversal of the burden of proof. It is not beyond the draftsman's wit to contrive it, because it has been done in respect of the rest of the United Kingdom. That is something that the commission has thought necessary for Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, and probably the greatest area of concern is the reliance placed on witnesses' statements in securing convictions. That is coupled with the interrogation procedures that we have to consider from time to time. There is an obvious connection, and it causes anxiety.
Fourthly, sections 11 and 14 and the powers of arrest and detention are recommended by the commission for amendment. In addition, there is the minor but important matter of whether all the


offences scheduled under section 4 need to be kept as terrorist offences or whether some should be terrorist offences only when the DPP certifies that they should be. I am thinking particularly of the inclusion of actual bodily harm, which is one of the most minor of the assault charges but which is a scheduled offence under section 4.
The Secretary of State objected that this is not the time when such changes can be made, though that is exactly what the Government were saying six months ago about section 12 and schedule 1. They may also say that with the material available we cannot judge whether the case is made out. That is in part because they have failed to provide the material to enable us to make the judgment.
However, there is a fair degree of unanimity in articles on the Act by outside commentators. I concede that the Government have a serious point in regard to the material on which we make a judgment and it is a matter that all who wish to see normality in the criminal law begin to be restored must treat seriously.
The standing commission was set up by the Secretary of State to advise him privately. It was not set up to advise the public on the workings of the Act or on its proposals for amendment. It is not geared to informing the public. There should be a great deal more information available to the public on the workings of the Act and a great deal more scrutiny of how it works in practice. A knowledgeable scrutiny of the Act is essential before any changes, even the more radical ones that my hon. Friends want, are contemplated.
The only judicial review of the Act was carried out in 1974-75 by the Gardiner committee. Among other things, it led to the phasing out of detention. Its terms of reference are as apposite to a study of the Act today as they were when the committee was set up:
We were appointed:
'to consider what provisions and powers, consistent to the maximum extent practicable in the circumstances with the preservation of civil liberties and human rights, are required to deal with terrorism and subversion in Northern Ireland, including provisions for the administration of justice, and to examine the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973; and to make recommendations.'

With the exception that the Act is now a 1978 measure, those remarks are, in all particulars, still apposite. Conclusion 5 was:
The continued existence of emergency powers should be limited both in scope and duration.
It follows from that conclusion that there should be regular inspections of the Act by such a judicial body.
In my judgment and that of the official Opposition, the time is right for another such judicial review of the Act, with broadly the same terms of reference as the Gardiner committee's. There might even be an advantage in appointing as many of the Gardiner committee as are able and willing to serve on the new review. They have the expertise, because they have considered the matter before. I urge the Government to set up such a review—five or six years after the completion of the previous one—as a means of examining the Act in the light of present-day needs and requirements.
The Secretary of State dwelt long on the change that has occurred in the terrorist scene since the Act was first put before the House. I agree, mercifully, that it has changed. There is a need for scrutiny of whether all the emergency powers are necessary in the form in which they now appear in the Act, five years after the last judicial review. By so doing a great deal of anxiety about the Act and its working would be alleviated or focused on those areas that the committee identified. Succeeding debates would be greatly helped by the information provided.
I hope that the Government will respond quickly to that suggestion. Their duty both to the House and to the country demands no less. It would commend wide acceptance in all parts of the House. Only then can the House feel that it is playing a constructive role in the consideration of the emergency provisions Acts rather than acting as a rubber stamp. The House is at its worst when it acts in that way.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: We should vote against it.

Mr. John: With respect, my hon. Friend would throw the baby out with the bath water. Some exceptional power is still necessary to meet an exceptional circumstance in Northern Ireland.
I should like the advantage of a judicial review of, for example, the restoration of the jury system before I made up my mind on that matter. I am not prepared to remove completely in advance all powers in the hope that the jury system will work satisfactorily after its restoration.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend used the phrase "acting as a rubber stamp". If the House does not wish to act as a rubber stamp it can vote against the legislation. It is not right for my hon. Friend to suggest that the House automatically acts as a rubber stamp. People may vote for the legislation because they believe in it.

Mr. John: The analogy of the rubber stamp may be a false one. It may be my hon. Friend's interpretation that the House acts as a rubber stamp when it passes legislation, but my interpretation is that it passes legislation without adequate scrutiny and without fulfilling the duty of informing itself about the vital matter of the parameters of the debate in order to conduct the debate sensibly and properly. It may not wish to oppose, but at least it will have scrutinised the matter properly and fairly and allowed it to pass. My suggestion of the judicial review could have that effect. I hope that the Government will see their way clear to doing that to alleviate the natural concern of many people about the workings of the Act.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I intend to make only the briefest of comments—not because there are not a great many points that I could make but because on a number of occasions I have tried to get across one point to the Secretary of State, which has been dodged. I wish to make that point again tonight in the hope that it will concentrate his mind and I shall receive a reply.
I refer to the deterrent to terrorism. The Secretary of State made it clear that the Government's way forward was conviction on proven evidence in the courts. One of my theories is that when the security forces get people to the courts, the courts do not give severe enough sentences. I tabled a question to the Secretary of State on 23 April. I asked him
if he will give the number of persons convicted … over the past four years for terrorist-

type offences: and what percentage of this number received non-custodial sentences."—[Official Report, 23 April 1980; Vol. 983, c. 199.]
In reply he said that in 1976 962 people were convicted but that 23 per cent. had received non-custodial sentences. In 1978 the figure had increased to 36 per cent., and in 1979 it was a fairly constant 35 per cent. For terrorist-type offences, therefore, over one-third of the people who are found guilty of committing crimes are able to thumb their noses at the police and walk out of the door of the courtroom.
The position is particularly bad in terms of membership of an illegal organisation. I asked the Secretary of State whether he could inform me how many of those who had received sentences for membership of the IRA had received non-custodial sentences. The answer that I received was that in 1976-77 about 50 per cent. of those who had been found guilty of membership of the IRA or other illegal organisations had received non-custodial sentences, and that that figure had increased in 1978-79 to about 76 per cent.
Just think of it. Over three-quarters of the people who are found guilty of being a member of an illegal organisation are able to walk free from our courts. Is that a position that the Secretary of State can defend? Are we at war with terrorism in Northern Ireland or are we not? Surely, if we are we cannot allow those who are found guilty of being involved in the organisations that cause death and destruction in our country to walk free from our courts.
Will the Secretary of State undertake a review of sentencing policy in Northern Ireland and ensure that when a person who is found guilty is convicted in the courts he receives a punishment that fits the crime that he has committed?
I ask the Secretary of State to consider the effect, first, on the law enforcement agencies. What kind of morale is left in the police force when, after perhaps weeks or months of tracking down a criminal, they put together a case, they bring him to court, they are successful in getting the man convicted, but then have to watch as he sticks his tongue out at them and walks through the door? That is happening all too often in our courts in Northern Ireland. I ask the


Secretary of State to concentrate his mind on that.
Will the Secretary of State also consider the effect on the terrorist and would-be terrorist? What kind of deterrent is it for those who would wish to engage or would think about engaging in terrorism when they know that their chances of not getting caught are greater than their chances of getting caught? Even if they are unfortunate enough, in their eyes, to be caught, they know that they have a good chance of insufficient evidence being brought against them to secure a conviction. Again, even if they are convicted, they know that they have a very good chance of getting off scot-free.
Will the Secretary of State please consider a review of the sentencing policy in Northern Ireland to ensure that we do not have a position in which the terrorist is laughing up his sleeve at the Government and, indeed, at successive Governments in Northern Ireland? Will he please ensure that the sentence fits the crime?

Mr. James Molyneaux: All of us who have at heart the safety of Northern Ireland citizens have a duty to indicate how that safety and the protection of the law can be improved. Through the exercise of the powers of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978—which in the main we are asked to renew tonight—the security battle has to a great extent shifted to the frontier. It is very important to note that fact. It is no longer accurate for people on this island of Great Britain to refer to the troubles in Northern Ireland. They ought to be facing the fact that in general the battle is being fought out on the frontier—not the border of Northern Ireland but the frontier of the United Kingdom. It is natural that our chief concern is for the United Kingdom citizens along that front line and for the security forces who man it.
Those of us who have taken more than a passing interest in the frontier areas have to tell the Secretary of State that much remains to be done. In County Fermanagh there are 88 frontier crossings capable of being used by vehicles with varying degrees of efficiency. Forty-two remain open. Up to last night at only

four were checks being carried out on vehicles.
I understand that one crossing at Lacky Bridge has been progressively cratered, and I ask that the same attention be given to a little bypass lane named Clerkins Lane, which is capable of being used as an escape route for terrorists. Another crossing at Castle Saunderson road could also be blocked without great hardship to the local population. Indeed, hardship should not enter into the consideration when we are seeking to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens of the United Kingdom. We should like assurance that the blocking and guarding of roads will not be only a temporary expedient, but will be continued as long as necessary to secure the safety of Her Majesty's subjects, whether they be in the security forces or not.
We should also like to see uniformity in the pattern of border control throughout the: frontier. At present there is far too much variation.
With regard to the Secretary of State's proposal to allow the powers of detention to lapse, I have always felt that the power to detain is an essential safeguard when the State is under terrorist attack. I appreciate that the power will remain on the statute book in the form of section 12 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. However, I find it difficult to see any advantage in allowing it to lapse by excluding section 12 from the continuance order. What is the effective difference between that and not using the power, as has been the case for the past five years? In both cases the power remains but is not being exercised.
There is, however, one important and significant difference. After 25 July, if a situation arose that required the introduction of detention under section 33 of the 1978 Act, the Secretary of State could, if necessary, as he said, employ the "urgent" procedure under section 32. It could not be subsection (3) (a), which requires that a draft order or regulations be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. Terrorists would be unlikely to wait until they had read Hansard before contacting their travel agents or the Irish Tourist Board. The "urgent" procedure would have to be used, which is provided for, as the Secretary of State said, in section 32 (3) (b).
Is it realistic to suppose that a Secretary of State would put his hand to such an order? It would be kicked around like a parliamentary prayer for 40 days and 40 nights before the Secretary of State's action was approved in retrospect by both Houses of Parliament. There would be hours of protest and complaint that the Secretary of State was acting like a gauleiter by not first seeking parliamentary approval.
However, there would be one great disadvantage. The order would presumably take some time to prepare. How secure would the information therefore be? What range of persons would have to be consulted in the course of its preparation? Would there not be a danger of the moles getting at the secret when the Foreign Office was asked for advice on the desirability of informing Dublin of the impending development, if only to provide time for the organisation of reception committees?
The Government will not receive many votes of thanks for this gesture from terrorist fellow-travellers who, like the terrorists, will regard it as further evidence of the lack of will to defeat them. That seems to be a fact of life.
The Secretary of State, in his original announcement in the letter which he sent out at the time that the decision was made—and we are grateful for the advance notice—used the phrase
having considered all that has happened since the powers were last used".
We vividly remember, to quote those words, "all that has happened". Because of that, we ask the Government to balance this action, which we are not contesting, by recognising and getting others to recognise, as Paul Johnson put it recently,
that terrorism distinguishes between lawful and totalitarian States in favour of the latter.
I do not quarrel with the Secretary of State's view that we have to act within the law. I have always supported that position. I ask only that the Secretary of State and his Ministers do all in their power to ensure that the law is applied more vigorously. In that hope, we propose to support the order.

Mr. Martin Flannery: First, I protest that again

such a debate as this is taking place very late at night when there are hardly any journalists present. In my opinion, this is not without planning. This serious debate is not being treated seriously, and I make my protest on that basis. For years a few of us have struggled against this Act. I have opposed it throughout, and I shall continue to do so in what I am about to say. But there is a change.
I am opposing the order in a new climate that is developing. It is not the climate that has emerged from the two Front Bench speeches. It is a climate that is developing throughout the Labour movement in which the bipartisan policy has been severely questioned. The time when the Labour Government, for instance, under pressure from many Members, allowed only a half-hour debate in which only orthodox views were called has gone. Throughout the Labour movement there is a severe questioning of the policy of the Labour Party on Northern Ireland. A bigger debate is developing, and it will be mirrored to some extent at the next Labour Party conference, where many things which the leaders of the party have carried out for many years will be questioned.
Northern Ireland, so called—and this place is part of Northern Ireland—was built in a wrong manner. That has caused all this trouble. Let us make no mistake about it—and Conservative Members must listen to this—Northern Ireland has never been governed without special powers since 1922. Indeed, the whole of Ireland before that was governed by special powers.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flannery: We have only a short time. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have a chance to speak.
Since Northern Ireland became an Orange State and an appendage of Britain, it has had to have draconian powers all the time. When a State has to have powers of this nature there is something sick, ill and massively wrong with it. A State which has had to be governed continuously by such draconian legislation, ultimately producing continuing slaughter, has something wrong with it. What is wrong is a lack of democracy, no matter how much the


Ulster Unionists may say that there is democracy. They equate democracy with a built-in majority. That majority was arranged by them, by force of arms and against the will of the Irish people. That has caused all the trouble. These acts have always been aimed at the minority Catholic community, in a very sectarian and bigoted manner. That community is composed of the original Irish. The whole of Ireland is really their country.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Why are their names Welsh?

Mr. Flannery: Their names are Welsh as a result of imperialism. Although I seem to provoke hon. Members when I tell the truth, I shall have to do so.
In May 1974, the Protestant community—with whom I have the deepest sympathy, given that they are ruled by their governors on the Benches behind me—provided one third of the convicted terrorists.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Not only is his history bad, but his geography is terrible.

Mr. Flannery: Despite that, only one-tenth of those interned without trial were Protestants. That shows that the Acts have been implemented in a disgraceful way.
The British people are sick and tired of this running sore. If a referendum were undertaken in Britain, the British people would go further than I would go. They would want the troops to withdraw. I do not want that to happen, because the minority and majority communities do not desire it to happen. Some time ago, the Daily Mirror pointed out that the British people wanted the troops to withdraw. Conservative Members may not believe the Daily Mirror. They believe The Daily Telegraph That is their choice, and I can do nothing about it. As long as the minority community is not properly policed by the RUC, whom they have always distrusted, it will be the main victim of the special powers that are given to the Army and to the police. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) knows that, but he never says anything about it.
Let us see what this draconian Act—the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978—says. Section 7 states:

A trial on indictment of a scheduled offence shall be conducted by the court without a jury.
Subsection (2) states:
The court trying a scheduled offence on indictment under this section shall have all the powers, authorities and jurisdiction which the court would have had if it had been sitting with a jury.
That is just one of the disgraceful draconian powers. The House should be ashamed of passing such an Act.
Section 9 states:
Where a person is charged with possessing a proscribed article in such circumstances as to constitute an offence to which this section applies and it is proved that at the time of the alleged offence—

(a) he and that article were both present in any premises; "

God be praised; what a law! It continues:

"(b) the article was in premises of which he was the occupier or which he habitually used otherwise than as a member of the public".

I have given only two examples of draconian powers. I do not have time to read section 19, but it is even worse. I wish that the British people would read that nefarious Act. They do not understand what is being done in their names. We have had enough of such monstrous and draconian powers.

Mr Biggs-Davison: Mr Biggs-Davison rose—

Mr. Flannery: Such powers are irrelevant, and they inflame the situation. Conviction can result from confession alone. We all know that Stalin used such methods. When dictatorial powers are used, confessions are used. They become a substitute for the real evidence. It makes one wonder how many innocent people are in gaol in Northern Ireland. It also makes one wonder what a legacy of bitterness and revenge is being nurtured and developed. The Secretary of State conveyed the impression that because terrorism has now lessened it is on its way out. He is dreaming. The reality is that it is not on its way out. That legacy will continue, because this is a political problem.
What are the results of this horrifying Act? First, it denies a fair trial by jury and substitutes confessions obtained by whatever means for real evidence. Secondly, the military and the police use suspicion as substitutes for evidence. We talk about getting rid of the "sus" laws


in this country, but the "sus" laws exist on a grand scale in Northern Ireland and are substituted for evidence. Thirdly, it has sown suspicion around the H-blocks in Armagh, a suspicion which should not have been sown except by the surrounding lack of any real political approach to the problem of Northern Ireland. Fourthly, it has made other nations suspicious of the, whole Northern Ireland State, and quite rightly.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Mr. Biggs-Davison rose—

Mr. Flannery: The real causes of the continuing emergency are political. There is not the slightest likelihood of these Acts, no matter how they are renewed and no matter how many are passed, ever stopping terrorism. If they did manage to stop it, it would break out again at a later date just as sure as we are in this Chamber, because the reasons for the emergency are political and only a political solution can be effective.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flannery: The enforced partition of Ireland is the real cause of all the trouble that is occuring in the North. The hon. Member for Epping Forest wanted me to give way. I am feeling a little charitable, so I shall.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is very courteous towards those who disagree with him. Why is it that what he calls draconian powers are in force and are used in the Republic of Ireland? Can he explain why that is the case? Is he opposed to that?

Mr. Flannery: I think that draconian powers are used in the Republic of Ireland because the Republic also does not understand the problem and because there has never been a Socialist Government in the Republic. Perhaps if the Republic moves a little nearer to that, it will understand the problem. The sad fact is that the lack of any political solution on the part of the Republic of Ireland, which is going through a scries of changes, and on the part of the North and the Government over here, will result in continued terrorism, because the answers are political. I was just about to give them.

Mr. McNamara: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the need for draconian powers in the South is because of Partition itself, and that if one got rid of Partition there would be no draconian powers on either side?

Mr. Flannery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has put the argument better than I could. As he has just said, enforced Partition is the real and fundamental cause of the entire problem. It will not be solved until we have in view the prospect of a united Ireland. That is a state which the Labour movement in this country is steadily moving towards. Hence, such Acts as the one that we are now debating will never end terrorism. Only the reversal of the disastrous veto on Irish reunification which was given to the Unionists can remove the political and social base of terrorism.
The evidence which comes to us across the Chamber and from the Benches behind me proves almost conclusively that the Unionists, who precipitated all this, have learnt nothing. They wish to return to the old Stormont system. They want to rule in the way that created all this trouble and chaos. They have learnt nothing about the underlying political causes of this terrible problem. Once again, they want to have their form of so-called democracy, where the minority community is held in subjection and where they carry on in whatever way they wish. It will never work. Only a change of heart and mind, and only the abolition of the sectarian bigotry that pervades the Unionists ranks and the extension of real democracy to both communities in Northern Ireland tending towards the ultimate unification of Ireland, will solve the problem. If hon. Members will not turn their minds towards that solution, a growing section of the British people is doing so.

Mr. John McQuade: Once more the House is being asked to continue the effect of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978—an occasion that is now beginning to acquire the characteristics of a ritual. The danger is that, as in all rituals, the real meaning and significance is forgotten and the form becomes an end in itself. It is as well, therefore, that I remind the


House of the real meaning of the event taking place today.
First, it is an acknowledgement that despite all your fine words and brave phrases on both sides, you have still not subdued terrorism after 12 long years in my small country, which means simply that you are unable to put down a bunch of corner boys and thugs. Secondly, it gives an opportunity for a lot of clever asses to explain why these hoodlums cannot be beaten. You cannot have what is laughingly called a military victory until you have a political settlement. This is nothing more than meaningless claptrap and a pathetic attempt to explain away the obvious inability of a gaggle of namby-pamby cissies to remove us from the thrall of a vicious murder gang.
Thirdly, in complete contradiction, it gives others an opportunity to trumpet that the war against the terrorist is being won. You have been winning it, in case you do not know, for 12 years. The widows of south Armagh will be heartened to hear it. Fourthly, to us in Northern Ireland, it is a reminder, as if we needed it, of your pathetic inability to provide the fundamentals of life in what you choose to call your realm. What a mockery! It is a reminder that since you decided, with your high-sounding morality and your know-all condescension, to take over the role of guardian of the public peace, you have made a criminal mess of it and are showing no sign that you have learnt anything from your experience. Why did you not leave it to us to do what we had done effectively for a couple of generations in protecting the lives of our fellow citizens? You swallowed the very propaganda that is now being used against you. You come with your senseless platitudes and airy inanity, take down our defences, and put nothing in their place, and death and distress have been our legacy ever since.
Is it any wonder that you earn the bitter contempt of so many of my fellow countrymen who, until then, would have laid down their lives for the name of Britain! This is a reminder of your abysmal failure in the streets. The order is also a telling reminder that you have not even the common sense to deal in the courts with whatever ruffians your security forces are lucky enough to catch.
Your continued failure to see the absurdity of a suspected terrorist remaining silent when questioned about his alleged activities and being allowed to shelter behind that silence makes me think that you regard this battle of human misery as some kind of game. Why should his refusal to answer not be regarded as evidence against him? To any man of common sense it should be. Or are you so taken with the English myth of "fair play" that you are trying to regulate the relationship between the public and its butchers by the rules of cricket? You know, you are silly enough to think that there is something praiseworthy in such an idiotic attitude.
Then again, you perpetuate the travesty that allows a terrorist to make—as he does invariably—wild allegations of ill treatment which compel the prosecution to disprove them beyond reasonable doubt, which is often a virtual impossibility. Is it not time that we reversed the burden of proof in such cases so that in one sense at least a proper balance is maintained between the public and the terrorist?
To have to say things such as this after 12 long years really shows the futility of it all. You do not have the gumption to do what has to be done, either in the streets or in the courts. And you do not have the will to allow us to do it ourselves. The only ingenuity that you show is in explaining away your own ghastly inadequacies. The only resolution that you exhibit is a determination not to do the right thing. You reveal all the weakness of a fourth-rate and steadily declining Power—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know that when he uses the word "you" he is referring to the occupant of the Chair. I am sure that I have not done any of the things that he is alleging. He must refer to "the Government" or "the hon. Members", not to me.

Mr. McQnade: I take it back Mr. Deputy Speaker—I was referring to the Government. Our widows and orphans are the sufferers from their actions. And to cap it all, the Government are so pleased with their performance that in their depressingly unimaginative paper recently they declared their intention to


continue responsibility for what they call security. Is it any wonder that we despair? [Interrruption.]—I challenge hon. Members to say anything that they have to say outside the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to call the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), but before I do I must tell him that the Minister hopes to wind up at 12.35 am. I hope that he will bear that point in mind.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade), I am inclined to support this kind of legislation.
I oppose this legislation tonight, as I have done since it was first introduced in 1973, because I believe that it is antidemocratic, it takes away the democratic rights of people in Northern Ireland, it is counter-productive and it alienates a whole section of the Catholic minority community in Northern Ireland because of the way in which that Act is implemented.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), in an interjection, said that there was draconian legislation in the Republic. In the last eight years, no matter how draconian the legislation might have been, it was nothing compared with what is happening in Northern Ireland. The facts of life are that in Northern Ireland in the last eight years 299, 380 homes have been searched—most of them in the early hours of the morning. About 25,000 people have been detained by the RUC or the security forces for between four hours and seven days.
It is easy to imagine the resentment and bitter animosity that such action can bring about. People have been driven from their beds in the early hours and detained. The young people in the community have been alienated. Most of the people who were interned for scheduled offences before the introduction of this legislation were 9, 10 or 11 years of age.
I oppose the legislation because it is counter-productive. It does not have the effect that was intended. It alienates a whole community. One must have serious doubts and reservations about the way in which confessions are brought before the courts. I recognise that once

someone is charged under the legislation there is always a presumption of guilt—even by Members of the House—because the person is charged under the emergency provisions legislation. Once a person is so charged there is a reluctance by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary to query convictions for even a second. I put it on record that I know people who are imprisoned under the emergency legislation who should not be imprisoned. I ask the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Home Secretary, to examine again the case of Bernard Conlan, who was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and died in Wormwood Scrubs.
The Home Secretary found last week that, after a number of years, and after the cases had been thrown out of the Appeal Court, he was able, in conscience, to examine the facts and free two people. The hon. Member for Epping Forest has been involved with me in inquiring into the case of Bernard Conlan and the other people who were sentenced with him. I am convinced that Bernard Conlan was not guilty. He was tried and convicted under the emergency legislation. I hope that we do not have to wait for another book to be published by Ludovic Kennedy before the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State examines the authenticity of such cases.
Recommendations have been made throughout the years to modify the legislation. A succession of Secretaries of State say that they will not keep the legislation on the statute book one minute longer than necessary. Only a few months ago a fellow called Johnny Logan won the Eurovision song contest with a song called "What's another year?" That is how the Government regard this legislation. It has been too long on the statute book.
I ask the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary to look again at the conviction and the death of Bernard Conlan. They should take seriously on board the recommendations made by my hon. Friends. Another review body should be set up to inquire into all the ramifications of the Act to ensure that it is taken off the statute book as quickly as possible.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I


shall try in the few minutes left before the guillotine falls on the debate, as it were, to deal briefly with the matters raised by all those who have taken part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) was helpful enough to indicate that he thought that the Act should be renewed. He agreed that exceptional laws are needed for exceptional circumstances. We warmly welcome his support in that broad approach. The hon. Gentleman complained that the analysis of the operations under the Act carried out by the standing advisory commission was not available. He has probably seen the annual report, which was published on 6 March 1980 as a House of Commons paper. There is a good deal of material in that document. More recently, a full press release was issued by the commission.
The hon. Gentleman expressed again his misgiving about the bail provisions. I can only refer him to the argument of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He dealt at some length with his decision to leave the section 8 provisions as they are. The hon. Gentleman will recall that 45 per cent. of those involved in scheduled offence cases get bail, even under the existing arrangements. If we reversed the procedure to what it was before the emergency provisions legislation was introduced, the likelihood is that practically every case would result in the granting of bail. That would be going too far in one direction. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting suggestion—namely, the possible reactivation of the Gardiner committee. That is a relevant thought in the context of the ongoing cycle of renewal, which we shall consider without commitment.
The hon. Gentleman referred to schedule 4 and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. That is not a scheduled offence in any case in which the Attorney-General certifies that it is not to be treated as such an offence. The same applies to murder, manslaughter and a number of other offences associated with terrorism. There is a certain amount of flexibility in the operation of the schedule.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) expressed misgiving about the general uniformity and ration-

ality of border crossings policy and the closures of such crossings. The hon. Gentleman will remember that my right hon. Friend recently authorised the closure of several more roads along the border between County Fermanagh and County Monaghan. Earlier in the year a number of other border crossings were closed. The decision to close the crossings is taken on the basis of advice received from the security force commanders, on whose professional judgment we need to depend.
The hon. Gentleman will note that we have 281 crossings along the whole of the border, 137 of which have been made impassable to normal traffic, which is a fairly high proportion.

Mr. Win. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it has not been found possible to carry out the advice of a number of hon. Members in this respect, including myself, until now, and that that advice was given to previous Governments? What sort of professional advice has been taken that seems to have been 10 years behind that given by politicians?

Mr. Alison: It is by no means an agreed operational advantage to close border crossings. The closure of crossings ties troops down in some circumstances. It is a fine balance, and we take the advice of professional advisers.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South referred to the Lacky crossing. On the night of 19-20 July—last Saturday and Sunday—old cars were placed on a cattle crossing a little way from the bridge. A bypass of earlier obstacles was built. The security forces discovered the crossing early on Saturday morning. As they approached they became suspicious that the makeshift bridge might be intended as a "come on". The hon. Gentleman will know the significance of that. They cordoned off the area, thus preventing any effective use of the crossing, and started a clearance operation for bombs. During Monday the Army set off four small explosions and one large one, which destroyed the makeshift bridge. Today an excavator is being used to deepen and widen the gulley at that point. The security forces expect to have completed the operation by now. The layout of the area, with the track on either side of the stream which marks the border, means


that further attempts to construct makeshift crossings must remain possible but we intend to keep this road impassable.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the way in which we decided to drop the detention power orders and wondered whether we might not find ourselves caught out by what he called the "moles" getting in and advising possible terrorists that they would be made liable to detention. As he will appreciate, section 32 (3), and particularly (3) (b), of the Act enables the emergency procedure to be used. It might be that a particular suspect who might become the subject of a detention order, were we to reactivate them, would be in police custody at the time, making it possible for him to be detained. There would merely be an extrapolation from the fact that he was in detention, into a more extended form of detention by the activation of these powers. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would have to worry that the person might get wind of what we were going to do.
The parliamentary debate would be ex post facto. This is the difference between what" we are doing now and the procedure of leaving things as they are. There would have to be the parliamentary debate. This is the difference and it is something that we feel the new circumstances justify.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) had a complaint about the percentage of those charged and convicted of terrorist offences who did not receive custodial sentences. It is true that the percentage of those convicted who do not receive such sentences is high. Sentencing is, in the first place, clearly a matter for the courts and not my right hon. Friend. It should also be noted that the figures relate to those convicted of membership of an illegal organisation and of no other offences. The figures do not include those convicted of a more serious offence, such as murder, possession of explosives or of firearms. They tend, therefore, to relate to those against whom the police have the least substantial evidence and to those on the periphery of terrorism. This is essentially a matter for the courts to decide. Membership of an illegal organisation is the charge in these cases and is the explanation for the num-

ber of non-custodial sentences in this category being relatively high.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) alleged that democracy was sick. I am bound to say that he managed to convey exactly the reverse of the truth. This Act, which we are asking the House to renew, openly spells out some derogations from the normal practice and standards of the rule of law in a free society in which democracy prevails. We come to the House. The whole thing can be openly debated. The facts are known, the derogations are discussed, the press is available to report our proceedings. We make no pretence—

Mr. Fitt: The press is not present.

Mr. Alison: Well, Hansard is there for the next day—at least, we hope it is.
The facts of the derogations are openly and specifically spelt out. I ask the hon. Member for Hillsborough to reflect on the contrast with Socialist countries. He will know that in the Socialist countries their policy is to have a spurious and high-sounding constitution spelt out, elaborating and proclaiming certain alleged civil rights. However, in those Socialist countries in which this spurious catalogue of civil rights is spelt out the secret police—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington). Which Socialist countries?

Mr. Alison: The Soviet Union is a case in point. The secret police of the totalitarian society prevent the citizens enjoying those spurious rights. This is exactly the reverse of what we are doing.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade) wanted a much more ruthless pursuit of the campaign against the terrorists. The hon. Gentleman is a man of dauntless personal courage, as we all know. He has not been reluctant to arrest armed terrorists and he deserves the utmost respect in this House. The way in which the number of terrorist offences has declined sharply in recent years, not least this year as compared with the last half of last year, is a clear indication of the fact that the policy that we are pursuing, which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) thinks much too draconian, old is nevertheless producing that type of movement towards a much


lower incidence of terrorism than would be the case if the policy of the hon. Member for Belfast, North, of a much more ruthless, relentless pursuit of the terrorist was activated. The hon. Member for Belfast, West thinks that we are doing much too much, while his neighbour in Belfast, North thinks that we are doing much too little. Both hon. Members have suffered from the effects of terrorism. I think that the House has just about got it right in the kind of measures that we are taking.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West alleged that there were people in prison who should not be there. We shall look carefully at what he said and at the name that he quoted and the case that he made. This is a matter for the courts, but we shall reflect on what he said. In a democracy that is based on the rule of law and that brings to the House and

Division No. 425]
AYES
[12.46 am


Alexander, Richard
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Alison, Michael
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Proctor, K. Harvey


Arnold, Tom
Haselhurst, Alan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hawksley, Warren
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bendall, Vivian
Henderson, Barry
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Best, Keith
John, Brynmor
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Biggs-Davison, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Blackburn, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shersby, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Knight, Mrs Jill
Skeet, T. H. H.


Bradford, Rev. R.
Lawrence, Ivan
Speed, Keith


Bright, Graham
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speller, Tony


Brinton, Timothy
Loveridge, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Brittan, Leon
Lyell, Nicholas
Squire, Robin


Brooke, Hon Peter
MacGregor. John
Stainton, Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
McQuade, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cadbury, Jocelyn
McQuarrie, Albert
Stevens, Martin


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Major, John
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marlow, Tony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Chapman, Sydney
Mates, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Tebbit, Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Molyneaux, James
Thompson, Donald


Colvin, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Cope, John
Murphy, Christopher
Wakeham, John


Costain, Sir Albert
Myles, David
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Neale, Gerrard
Ward, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Neubert, Michael
Wheeler, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Newton, Tony
Whitney, Raymond


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Normanton, Tom
Wickenden, Keith


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Onslow, Cranley



Garel-Jones, Tristan
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhart, Philip
Parris, Matthew
Mr. Carol Mather and


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Mr. David Waddington.


Grist, Ian

NOES


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Home Robertson, John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKelvey, William
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Maxton, John
Stallard, A. W.


Cryer, Bob
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tilley, John


Daiyell, Tarn
Mikardo, Ian



Dobson, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Fitt, Gerard
Parry, Robert
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Clive Soley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

discusses openly in the House the provisions for conducting the normal processes of the rule of law, there is nothing that we want to do more than to prevent abuse and to secure the fairest and most just treatment for the citizen. If the hon. Gentleman puts forward a case in which he alleges that there has been a miscarriage of justice, we shall consider it.

I think that in the short time that was left to me I have covered most of the points that were raised. I very much hope that the House will let us renew this Act for a further six months, which I hope and believe will enable us to make even further progress in the containment and ultimate defeat of terrorism.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 20.

Resolved,

That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.

INLAND REVENUE (OFFICIAL ERROR RULE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury for staying up to this late hour to listen to my case and to answer the debate. This is a time of the year when Treasury Ministers carry an intolerable load, with proceedings on the Finance Bill, and I am therefore all the more grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's presence.
The issue that I wish to raise is the operation of Treasury policy in so far as it limits what is referred to as the official error rule and, in particular, as it affects my constituent, Mr. Wilson, of 440 Woodgrange Drive, Southend.
In the first report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner concern was expressed that the Inland Revenue had no power to waive arrears of tax. The Committee took the view that that was wrong in cases when taxpayers were presented with a substantial bill that arose purely because the Inland Revenue had made a mistake.
In response to that report, the Government issued a White Paper in July 1971 and accepted the need for something to be done, but proposed that the injustices that had been referred to by the Select Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner should be resolved only where there was hardship. A scale was drawn up providing that if the taxpayer's income was £ 1,500 or less and a mistake by the Inland Revenue resulted in the individual being presented with a substantial tax bill, all the liability should be carried by the Revenue. It was further proposed that if the income was between £ 1,500 and £ 3,000 one-half of the bill should be borne by the Inland Revenue, but that if the income of the person concerned was more than £ 3,000, no remission should be allowed.
It is interesting—and it gives an idea of the extent of the problem—that between 1970 and 1977 a total of £ 7.4 million of taxation was remitted, involving 55,000 taxpayers. The average remission was more than £ 100 per affected taxpayer.
The scale has, of course, been revised several times. The latest revision provides that if the income of the taxpayer is below £ 4,000 a year, full remission is made in cases of official error. If the income is below £ 6,000, the remission is 75 per cent., at between £ 6,000 and £ 8,000, remission totals 50 per cent. and on an income of £ 8,000- £ 10,000, remission is 25 per cent., but if an individual's total income is more than £ 10,000, no remission is allowed, irrespective of the nature of the official error.
The latest report of the Select Committee, issued as recently as 21 February 1980, thoroughly reviewed the whole procedure. In evidence before the Committee the Parliamentary Commissioner expressed the view that the rigid cut-off points were unjust and created rough justice. In page 10 the Commissioner stated that:
In my view anyone who has blamelessly conducted his affairs on the assumption that his tax account is in order must inevitably suffer on being informed that it is not; and it is no answer, in my view, to tell him that he is so wealthy that no injustice has been done to him or that he has anyway had the benefit of the unpaid tax. For, almost certainly, he would not have taken the benefit if he had realised that the money was not his to keep and, if he had spent it, he would not have done so—sometimes irrevocably—had he known it was repayable.
That was a strong view, basically saying that the rigid cut-off points were unfair.
It is unfair to have arbitrary limits of that sort. The total income of a person is no true guide to his wealth or his available resources. It does not take account of a taxpayer's obligations, his debts, his family obligations, his children or of the elderly relatives that he might support. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister is a fair man. I think that he will agree that the total income is not a true and fair guide to a person's available resources or wealth.
In considering the matter the Committee made two specific recommendations. First, it felt that the lower limit was unfair and should be raised; secondly, it recommended that in cases


above £ 10,000 a year at least a token remission of 10 per cent. should be made. That was a limited proposal, but it was fair and reasonable. There is no doubt that if a taxpayer is suddenly presented with a bill, through no fault of his, it involves at least inconvenience, and possibly hardship.
How does that affect my constituent? Mr. Wilson is a responsible and meticulous person. I have no wish, and it would be wrong, to parade his private affairs—or the private affairs of any constituent—in public. Suffice it to say that through an unfortunate error in the issuing of coding notices he was presented with a bill for £ 977 in respect of the year 1978-79, and was advised that it was likely that a bill for a similar amount would fall to be paid in respect of 1979-80. At no time was there any suggestion that the liability arose from a mistake on his part. I have a letter from Mr. Williams, the Inspector of Taxes, London Provincial 5 district, dated 16 April, in which he states:
I am afraid that I can find no proper explanation as to the issue of the incorrect code … this would appear to be a bona fide coding error…. Naturally, I appreciate that it was a very costly mistake from your constitutent's point of view and I would ask you to extend my sincere apologies to Mr. Wilson for the error on the part of the Revenue.
There is no doubt about the facts. The Revenue made an unfortunate error, and admitted it courteously. In fairness to Mr. Williams, I should point out that it was not his office that made the mistake. His office gave me a courteous and speedy reply to my inquiry.
In dealing with the complex affairs of taxpayers in Britain, with so many people involved, inevitably mistakes will arise. In those circumstances it is only reasonable that some provision should be made to compensate those presented with substantial bills, through no fault of their own. In my constituent's case the amount involved is about £ 2,000. If his income had been £ 4,000 or under, this total liability would have been carried by the Revenue. If his income had been £ 7,500, he would have had to find only half the money. But because his total income was above £ 10,000, he is entitled to nothing except a sincere apology. I believe that this is not fair and that my constituent is entitled to some remission for the inconvenience which has been caused

to him as a direct result of an unfortunate error by the Inland Revenue.
In cases such as this I do not think that it is fair to say that a person can afford it. At the end of every tax year every taxpayer, irrespective of his income, faces the same questions, the same opportunities and the same problems. A taxpayer may decide, because there has been a surplus in the year, to buy a larger house, or perhaps a British Leyland car, following the advice of some of my right hon. Friends, or perhaps a flat for an elderly relative.
If, having made the purchase, for example, of a British Leyland car, he suddenly finds himself faced with an unexpected demand from the Inland Revenue for £ 1,000 or £ 2,000, he cannot suddenly sell the car at no loss to himself; he cannot suddenly undo the good that he might have done with the cash; he cannot suddenly take the money out of a business in which he may have invested it.
In these circumstances, I suggest that there is an obligation on the Treasury and on the Inland Revenue to make some gesture towards a taxpayer who is suddenly and unexpectedly presented with a very substantial tax demand of this sort. I hope that the Minister will do something to remedy the injustice done to my constituent and will at least give some indication that the Government are prepared to make some small move towards a fairer solution to problems of this sort.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has deployed a formidable case with his customary eloquence, courtesy and lucidity. He has drawn a general moral from the case of his constituent, Mr. Wilson. Although I judged from his speech that he does not wish me to go in great detail into Mr. Wilson's case, it is right that I should perhaps deal very briefly with the facts.
Mr. Wilson, as I am informed, for the year 1978-79 had a salary from employment which was over £ 10,000 a year and a pension from his previous employer which was somewhat less. Due to a mistake—my hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that it was a mistake on the part of the Inland Revenue and not on


the part of Mr. Wilson—all his allowances were given against his pension but a single person's allowance was also given against his salary.
The error was discovered towards the end of the next finacial year. There is a certain significance that should be attached to that, and we must draw a general moral from that at a later stage. The Inland Revenue felt it necessary to raise an additional assessment on Mr. Wilson to recover the sum of somewhat over £ 900. Since the error was perpetuated, it is, I regret to say, true that a further sum may have to be collected for the current tax year.
I should like to associate myself with the apologies that the inspector rendered to Mr. Wilson. As I said, no blame whatever attaches to Mr. Wilson. There is no hint of suspicion that he improperly concealed the facts or anything of that kind. But, of course, my hon. Friend presses me and he suggests—I understand the vigour with which he defends his constituent's case—that apologies in this kind of case are not adequate.
My hon. Friend has taken the House back over the history of these matters. The Revenue has always recognised that it has a power to waive or remit tax where there is absolute hardship. This is a power that it has under its general responsibility for the management and control of the tax system. But, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, in 1971, as a consequence of the first report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, a White Paper was laid in which the then Administration—the Chancellor of the Exchequer was my noble Friend Lord Barber—proposed a series of remissions related to an income scale which my hon. Friend has set out.
That scale has been improved or increased over the years. As recently as November last year this Adminstration considered it proper, bearing in mind the changed circumstances over the previous eight years, to alter the scale. However, as my hon. Friend has correctly pointed out, there is a cut-off point at £ 10,000. Sadly, Mr. Wilson lies uncomfortably on the wrong side of that point. Under the existing practice Mr. Wilson would not be considered for a remission.
The error in Mr. Wilson's case was discovered within one year of the year to which it related. My hon. Friend has studied these matters and, if I may reciprocate the compliment, is a fair-minded person. He will appreciate that the Inland Revenue machine is dealing with over 20 million taxpayers. The situation is particularly difficult in the case of PAYE, which is, as it were, a provisional collection of tax under schedule E during the course of the year. It is inevitable that some reconsideration of the facts may be necessary at the conclusion of the tax year. The Revenue has always adhered to the principle that if the error on its part has been discovered in the year subsequent to the year to which it relates, regrettably, no remission is due. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise the administrative difficulties of quantifying the liability with absolute precision in or very shortly after the end of the year of asssesment. On that ground, too, I regret that Mr. Wilson would not, under existing practice, be entitled to remission.
My hon. Friend makes the valid point that in any event those scales are a little unyielding. That very point was made in the recent report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Adminstration. The Committee made one or two recommendations to which we shall pay the closest possible attention. I am not in a position tonight to say what conclusions we have reached. The Committee again operates by reference to a scale. It suggests that, although there should be a token remission of 10 per cent. for taxpayers whose income is in excess of £ 10,000 it should apply only up to a limit of £ 15,000. I do not want to go into the details of Mr. Wilson's case, which may be indelicate, but I suggest that had we adopted in whole that recommendation, it would still, regrettably, not have afforded Mr. Wilson relief.
At the end of the day the Select Committee recognised the limitations of the existing system of relief. In paragraph 25 it concluded:
We accept Sir William Pile's views"—
Sir William Pile was then the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, who gave evidence—
that any system of this kind involves an element of rough justice, and that smooth justice would be more complicated and therefore more expensive to administer. We have


accordingly limited our recommendations to changes which we believe could be implemented without undue difficulty, which will make more satisfactory remedies available to the taxpayer and which will reduce unavoidable unfairness to a minimum.
Although the Committee recognised the limitations of the existing system of relief and proposed certain relaxations, to which consideration is being given, it did not suggest fundamental alteration, which is what my hon. Friend, with his usual pertinacity, is advocating. He is suggesting that we should consider the matter from a different principle. He suggests that if there is an error, without qualification, there should be a remission. I accept that there can be relative hardship for people with considerable income. My hon. Friend has instanced practical cases. I do not dissent from that at all. Equally, my hon. Friend, who has had considerable experience in administration, will recognise that in the interests of practical administration, because we are dealing with many cases, we must try to reduce the system of remission to fairly easily applicable rules. The Inland Revenue has proceeded on that basis up to this time.
I cannot tell my hon. Friend that I have the perfect solution, which has so far eluded not only the Inland Revenue and previous Treasury Ministers but the Select Committee which considered these matters. However, we shall certainly see how far we can respond to the specific recommendations of the Select Committee. I should like to see—without any commitment—whether we can approach the matter on a broader basis altogether, but that would open up a very wide area.
I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that, though regrettably under the existing rules we are unable to do anything

for Mr. Wilson—however we respond, it will be practically impossible to make it retrospectively effective, because it would probably mean reopening an enormous range of cases—he has generated a debate of some importance in which a real problem has received sympathetic consideration. There is a possibility—I put it no higher—that we shall be able to respond in the same spirit as that in which he has developed the debate.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend has explained why he cannot help my constituent. To ensure that some good comes out of my constituent's unfortunate experience, in the review which he is to hold will my hon. and learned Friend consider the possibility of some percentage remission, however small, being made to all levels of income, bearing in mind that everyone suffers inconvenience and hardship from such situations, no matter what their income may be? I appreciate that he cannot give any commitment on specific matters, but I hope that he will look at this matter of principle which is involved.

Mr. Rees: Certainly. I appreciate the understanding and moderate way in which my hon. Friend has pressed his case. I shall certainly take account of that point. I hope that at the end of the day my hon. Friend will feel that he has generated a small but important debate on a problem which deserves close consideration. Regrettably, we have felt unable to do anything for Mr. Wilson in this instance, but I hope that he will have the satisfaction of feeling that he has stimulated the reconsideration of an important matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past One o'clock.